Latest news with #FreedomHouse
News18
17-07-2025
- Politics
- News18
(Neo)Orientalism As Strategic Narrative: How Global Indices Attempt To Thwart A Rising Bharat
Last Updated: Indices constructed by the Freedom House, the Economist Intelligence Unit and the V-Dem project have all downgraded the democratic status of the civilisation-nation in recent years Why do international reports suddenly propagate that democracy in Bharat (India) is in decline? Is it a coincidence that this chorus has grown louder when the civilisation-nation rises in global stature and attempts to execute difficult but independent policies in the departments of external affairs and military? Beneath the numerical charts and rankings on freedom and development, a pattern has emerged—one that eerily resembles the colonial playbook used in the 19th century. We may now be witnessing a contemporary form of 'orientalism", weaponised via global indices. The concept was canonised in postcolonial studies by Edward Said and continues to exert intellectual influence. Analysed historically, colonial powers not only invaded but also narrated. Said notes that the military expedition that France undertook to Egypt in 1798 consisted of a cache of knowledge producers. Artists and scholars produced the Description de l'Égypte—a massive, decades-long documentation of the land of pyramids, which could be easily circulated. It portrayed Egypt and the East as anarchic and backward, which was in need of enlightenment. No less a tactician than a great general, Napoleon knew that such a strategic narrative about Egypt would justify his invasion to the public in France and international audiences. The same logic guided the British Raj to depict Bharat as backward, superstitious, timeless, and varna-bound. It legitimised imperial occupation as a 'civilising mission". David Spurr and Nicholas Dirks have studied discursive aggression of this variety in relevant depth. The tools of strategic narrative have now changed, but the instincts remain the same. Quasi-state actors like international NGOs (INGOs), involved in track-2 diplomacy, now deploy rankings and reports to manufacture persuasions that can decide the global image of a nation. And increasingly, Bharat seems to be in their crosshairs. Indices constructed by the Freedom House, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), and the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project have all downgraded the democratic status of the civilisation-nation in recent years. V-Dem, for instance, now labels Bharat as an 'electoral autocracy". The largest democracy lags behind Nigeria, Tunisia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Gabon, and more. The irony is remarkable. The dramatic classifications do not rest on robust criteria. They are methodologically flawed as they are based on subjective surveys filled out by a small pool of anonymous experts. Their ideological biases are unknown and unchecked. The metrics, too, are inconsistent. Salvatore Babones has repeatedly exposed how these indices are riddled with ideological blind spots. He argues that far from being impartial observers, the INGOs act more like self-appointed arbiters of global virtue, engaging in moral overreach under the guise of democracy advocacy. By selectively citing controversies and amplifying elite dissent, these organisations construct a narrative of democratic backsliding that is out of sync with electoral realities and constitutional norms in Bharat. The maintenance of linguistic diversity and the decriminalisation of homosexuality are certainly not highlights of an authoritarian polity. INGOs run on funds generated by a liberal order of global politics in which the USA is still the hegemon. Besides being devoted to liberal economics, such an international state of affairs—led by the US and other NATO nations—is equally invested in the spread of its version of 'liberal democracy". In 2006, a state document of the US on strategic culture observed, '… Americans have seen themselves as exceptional. This exceptionalism has influenced the way the United States deals with others … The impulse to transform the international system in the service of liberal democratic ideals forms a strand that runs throughout American history. The Clinton administration's national security strategy of engagement and enlargement and the George W Bush administration's commitment to spreading democracy … have more in common with one another than either administration's supporters would admit." To put it differently, the spread of neo-liberal democracy along with neo-liberal economics is a state-driven enterprise in which the powerful conglomerate, composed of the US and other NATO nations, is the spearhead. Academics and activists who are assimilated in the well-heeled system of INGOs via fellowships, funding, salaries, and internships are not anti-establishment, therefore. They are the establishment that does not speak truth to power. They parrot the truth that power has asked them to. These circumstances expose neo-orientalism as the strategic narrative deployed by the North-West against much of the East, including Bharat. Just as knowledge workers during the British Raj had claimed expertise over the civilisation-nation without really understanding it, INGOs today project assumptions and ideologies that are rooted in liberal orthodoxies. When complex developments in an ancient polity like Bharat are routinely measured in terms of templates that are ideologically laced and hegemonically driven, the result is disinformation. The power of strategic narratives of this sort must not be underestimated. Indices are widely cited in academic research, international media, policymaking, and tourism. They influence diplomatic postures, investor confidence, and the moral standing of a country in global forums. When a rising power like Bharat is consistently painted as illiberal, it is not just ideological nitpicking—it is a form of reputational containment. As the civilisation-nation asserts its rightful place on the world stage, it must offer its own story. Of course, this is not to suggest that Bharat is beyond critique. No democracy is perfect. But critique must be consistent and fair. This piece is not a rejection of scrutiny but a call for intellectual honesty. It is a reminder that colonial attitudes can resurface in new forms—as data, as indices, and as expert opinions. It was tragic the first time; this time it is farcical. Dr Arunoday Majumder is Assistant Professor in Rishihood University and MA student of IR, Security, and Strategy at OP Jindal Global University. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: June 25, 2025, 17:20 IST News opinion Opinion | (Neo)Orientalism As Strategic Narrative: How Global Indices Attempt To Thwart A Rising Bharat Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Shafaq News
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Shafaq News
Iraq 8th in Arab world for freedom
Shafaq News – Baghdad Iraq ranked eighth among Arab countries in terms of freedom in 2024, scoring 31 out of 100 points in the latest 'Freedom in the World' report released by US-based watchdog Freedom House. The annual report evaluates the state of political rights and civil liberties across 208 countries and territories. It assesses factors ranging from voting rights and freedom of expression to equal treatment under the law, examining how both governments and non-state actors influence personal freedoms. Globally, 2024 marked the 19th consecutive year of democratic decline, with freedoms deteriorating in 60 countries while only 34 saw improvements. By year's end, 20% of countries and territories had received a score of zero out of four on the report's metric for physical security and protection from illegitimate force. In the Arab world, Gaza and Sudan ranked lowest with just 2 points each, signifying near-total absence of freedom. Tunisia led the region with 51 points, followed by Comoros and Lebanon with 42 points each, and Mauritania with 39.
Business Insider
06-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Insider
Africa's freedom scorecard 2025: The most and least free countries on the continent
Amid the lingering effects of recent coups, disputed elections, and intensifying crackdowns on dissent, Africa's democratic landscape remains sharply divided. Freedom globally declined for the nineteenth consecutive year, according to the 2025 Freedom House report. The report assessed 195 countries and 13 territories, with notable democratic gains and challenges present in Africa. Nations including Nigeria, Rwanda, Gabon, and Egypt faced declines in freedom due to repression and political challenges. While some nations continue to deepen civil liberties and democratic norms, others are sliding further into authoritarian rule. According to the 2025 Freedom House report, freedom declined for the 19th consecutive year worldwide, reflecting a troubling erosion of democratic norms, civil liberties, and institutional checks in both advanced and developing nations. The report, which assessed 195 countries and 13 territories, reveals that while some African countries are making democratic gains, many others are sliding deeper into repression and instability. African Countries' Freedom Status in 2025 rankings are as follows: Top 10 Freest Countries in Africa (2025): These countries are rated "Free" due to their strong democratic institutions, respect for civil liberties, and effective governance. Countries Rated "Partly Free': These nations exhibit some democratic elements but face significant challenges, such as political interference, restricted media, and f lawed elections. The Least Free Countries in Africa: Rated "Not Free," these countries are plagued by violent conflict, repression, and a lack of independent judiciary systems. Free countries Score Partly Free countries Score Not Free countries Score Cape Verde 92 Malawi 65 South Sudan 2 Mauritius 86 Liberia 64 Sudan 2 South Africa 81 Benin 60 Eritrea 3 Ghana 80 Sierra Leone 59 Equatorial Guinea 5 Seychelles 80 Madagascar 55 Central African Republic 5 Botswana 75 Zambia 53 Somalia 8 Namibia 73 Kenya 51 Libya 10 Senegal 69 The Gambia 50 Chad 15 Lesotho 66 Cote d'Ivoire 49 Cameroon 15 Nigeria 44 Burundi 15 The 2025 Freedom House report presents a mixed picture for Africa, highlighting both democratic strongholds and worrying trends. Countries like Cabo Verde, Mauritius, and South Africa continue to uphold democratic ideals, characterized by strong institutions and civil liberties. Nigeria, despite being Africa's most populous country, has seen a consistent erosion of freedom. Deepening ethnic divisions, entrenched corruption, media bias, and widespread institutional distrust continue to undermine its democratic foundations Rwanda, Gabon, and Egypt have also experienced a sharp decline in freedom over the past year, driven by increased authoritarian practices and a weakening of judicial and democratic governance The Future of Democracy in Africa
The Wire
25-06-2025
- Politics
- The Wire
Democracy in Retreat: Comparing the Emergency with Modi's India
Today, June 25, 2025, marks the 50th anniversary of the Emergency declared by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi – an unprecedented democratic rupture in India's republican history. Spanning from 1975 to 1977, the Emergency did not merely suspend democratic norms and undermine constitutionalism; it revealed, with brutal clarity, an authoritarian impulse cloaked in constitutional legality. While the immediate trigger was the invalidation of Gandhi's 1971 election by the Allahabad high court on charges of electoral malpractice, the broader political context – rising economic distress and growing social unrest in the late 1960s and early 1970s – set the stage. Amid mounting protests and global condemnation, Gandhi eventually called for elections in 1977. She was decisively defeated, and India formally restored its democratic order. Yet, the political fabric of the nation had been irrevocably altered. Half a century later, India confronts a different kind of crisis – what scholars and commentators increasingly describe as an 'undeclared emergency'. Unlike 1975, this moment is not marked by the formal suspension of rights, but by the slow, methodical erosion of constitutional values under the guise of electoral legitimacy. Democratic backsliding in contemporary India According to the 2025 reports by V-Dem and Freedom House, India is now classified as an 'electoral autocracy' and 'partly free', respectively. These sobering designations track the systematic democratic backsliding since 2014, coinciding with the rise of Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Among the chief causes: persecution of minorities, institutional subversion, weaponisation of legal tools against dissent, and an overt push toward Hindu nationalist ideology. These developments align with recent scholarly assessments that India is undergoing a constitutional crisis of unprecedented scale – less visible than 1975, but no less perilous. Also read: Emergency: Declared Versus Undeclared One of the most disturbing outcomes is the deepening communalisation of politics, often reflected in genocidal rhetoric targeting Muslims. Gregory Stanton, founder of Genocide Watch, has even warned that 'early signs of genocide are already visible in India'. A comparative lens: 1975 and post-2014 The closest historical analogy remains the 1975 Emergency, when Gandhi declared emergency rule to protect her political survival. Through constitutional mechanisms, she suspended civil liberties, censored the press, and compromised institutional independence. Historian Gyan Prakash famously called it the 'lawful suspension of law'. Yet, it was an overt crisis – transparent in its declaration. In 1977, the Indian electorate responded decisively, voting Gandhi out of office and reaffirming the democratic spirit. In contrast, the Modi era is more insidious. No formal declaration of Emergency has been made. Instead, institutions are being systematically hollowed out through autocratic legalism and bureaucratic capture. Judicial independence has weakened, dissent is criminalised, and laws are increasingly deployed as instruments of authoritarian control. What emerges is a parallel constitutional order – legally structured but ethically void. Carl Schmitt's idea that "sovereign is he who decides on the exception" becomes alarmingly relevant. If Gandhi's Emergency was an extraordinary exception, Modi's governance normalises the exception itself – transforming it into a routine tool of rule. As philosopher Giorgio Agamben observes, the 'state of exception' collapses the boundary between legality and illegality. In today's India, that collapse feels almost complete. Undermining the constitutional promise Legal scholar Arvind Narrain argues that Modi's India represents 'a kind of State going beyond authoritarianism'. Political scientist Christophe Jaffrelot has warned of a creeping Hindu rashtra – where religious majoritarianism is intertwined with authoritarian governance. This vision is in direct contradiction to the constitutional ideals of pluralism, secularism and fraternity. Reflecting on this decline, political theorist Pratap Bhanu Mehta – who once described India's 1950 democratic leap as 'a leap of faith for which there was no precedent in human history' – forces us to confront key questions: Why do democratic breakdowns recur in India? What sustains them? And what constitutional future do they portend? From 1950 to the present: A democratic experiment under stress India's democratic experiment was, from its inception, radically ambitious. At independence, global observers doubted its feasibility given its enormous diversity, social hierarchies and colonial inheritance. Yet, the Constitution granted universal adult franchise and reimagined colonial subjects as rights-bearing citizens. Still, as B.R. Ambedkar warned, Indian democracy was built on undemocratic foundations. He called for the cultivation of constitutional morality, which remains elusive to this day. Over time, the post-independence dominance of the Congress system gave way to regional fragmentation, paving the way for populism and patronage – elements inimical to liberal democracy. The populist fervour of the early 1970s culminated in the Emergency. Today, similar populist impulses – now turbocharged by digital platforms and mass communication – are being deployed by the Modi regime. But this time, they are rooted in a deeper ideological project, with wider and more lasting consequences. Modi's India as autocratic legalism Kim Lane Scheppele's concept of 'autocratic legalism' – developed in the context of Hungary – is instructive here. It describes how democratically elected leaders use legal instruments to implement illiberal goals. This includes capturing institutions, rewriting rules and co-opting civil society under the veneer of legality. India under Modi fits this mould disturbingly well. The reading down of Article 370, which revoked Jammu and Kashmir's special status, was executed without political consensus – circumventing federal norms central to Indian constitutionalism. The Electoral Bonds Scheme, introduced under the pretext of campaign finance reform, has entrenched unprecedented opacity and disproportionately benefited the ruling party – while surviving years in judicial limbo, even if it is now struck down. The Citizenship Amendment Act (2019) introduced religion as a criterion for citizenship for the first time in independent India. As political theorist Niraja Gopal Jayal notes, this move represents an attempt to redefine Indian citizenship along ethno-religious lines. These are only illustrative examples. The broader trend reveals a calculated strategy: remaking the Indian state through democratic means to serve undemocratic ends. The normalisation of the exception What makes the present moment especially dangerous is not just the manipulation of the Constitution, but the entrenchment of impunity. Civil liberties are routinely violated. Laws like Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sedition are invoked against students, activists and journalists. The 2019 amendment to UAPA allows the state to designate individuals as 'terrorists' without trial. Legal scholar Nasser Hussain has shown how emergency laws, originally meant for exceptional circumstances, are now normalised as tools of everyday governance. Under Modi, this legal architecture of repression has expanded dramatically – undermining the very foundation of rule of law. India is no longer drifting toward authoritarianism. It is institutionalising it. A troubling trajectory A comparative reflection on the 1975 Emergency and the post-2014 era reveals a troubling trajectory. Gandhi's authoritarianism was personal, visible and ultimately repudiated by the people. Modi's version is structural, ideological and – most dangerously – normalised by society. This shift compels us to ask hard questions: Can democratic institutions endure without democratic values? Can a constitution survive when its spirit is steadily hollowed out? On this solemn 50th anniversary of the Emergency, the question is not whether democracy is being threatened – but whether it is being slowly undone from within. A strong and resilient democracy depends on a vigilant citizenry. The twin histories of declared and undeclared emergencies in India offer urgent lessons: democracy cannot be taken for granted. On this day, we must resolve – once again – to rescue democracy from the clutches of authoritarianism and restore it to its rightful path: rooted in constitutional values, nurtured by public accountability and sustained by collective vigilance. Md Zeeshan Ahmad is a Delhi based lawyer.
Time of India
04-06-2025
- 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.
