democracy – UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog

Alterations to the State Department’s Human Rights Reports Threatens Global Accountability

In a move that has alarmed human rights advocates and foreign policy experts alike, the U.S. State Department is undergoing a dramatic reorganization—one that includes stripping key content from its annual human rights reports. As NPR reported on April 18, 2025, internal memos instructed staff to remove references to over 20 categories of human rights violations, including prison conditions, restrictions on freedom of assembly, political corruption, and violence against marginalized groups.

These reports have long served as a global standard, used by scholars, advocates, journalists, and international institutions to assess rights conditions worldwide. Their sudden dilution is not just bureaucratic streamlining; it’s a quiet dismantling of accountability.

Image 1: A shocked reporter holding a camera. Source: Yahoo Images.

What’s Changing—and Why It Matters

Since 1977, the U.S. Department of State has released detailed annual country reports on human rights practices. Though sometimes criticized for political inconsistency, these reports have been broadly recognized as crucial documentation of abuses across the globe—from extrajudicial killings in authoritarian states to censorship, labor exploitation, and systemic discrimination.

But under the new directive, entire categories of analysis are being erased. Sources within the department confirmed that topics such as discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, abuse of asylum seekers, and politically motivated arrests will no longer be discussed. These are not fringe issues—they reflect core violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), including:

Article 5: Protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
Article 9: Freedom from arbitrary arrest
Article 19: Freedom of expression
Article 21: Equal access to public service and fair governance
Article 2: Freedom from discrimination on any basis

When the U.S. selectively omits these rights from its assessments of other nations, it undermines the very foundation of universal human rights—that they are indivisible, interdependent, and apply to all people, everywhere.

The Chilling Effect of Omission

The most dangerous censorship is often the quietest. When a government stops discussing certain abuses, the signal to others, particularly authoritarian regimes, is clear: these violations no longer matter enough to be named.

In countries where local journalists, dissidents, or NGOs depend on international validation to draw attention to abuses, U.S. human rights reports can serve as a shield. Without public acknowledgment from a prominent diplomatic actor, local violations are easier to obscure, deny, or normalize. Human Rights Watch, for example, has long cited State Department reports as part of its advocacy efforts, particularly in places where press freedom is under threat.

This shift will also hinder asylum claims, many of which rely on credible evidence of persecution or unsafe conditions. When categories like “political persecution” or “anti-LGBTQ+ violence” are scrubbed from official reports, it becomes harder for individuals to prove their eligibility for protection under international refugee law.

Even beyond humanitarian concerns, this policy shift has strategic costs. The U.S. has historically positioned itself, however imperfectly, as a moral voice in international affairs. This voice is now compromised. Diplomats and foreign service officers will be asked to promote democratic values abroad without the backing of their own agency’s complete assessment of those values.

Former ambassador Tom Malinowski noted that this move “betrays the people in repressive countries who depend on the U.S. to tell the truth about what they’re facing”. It also gives foreign governments an easy out: why heed U.S. criticism when that criticism is suddenly partial and politically selective?

A Broader Retrenchment of Rights Infrastructure

These changes aren’t occurring in isolation. They’re part of a broader rollback. As Reuters and AP have reported, the State Department’s ongoing reorganization includes eliminating 132 offices and slashing 15% of domestic staff, with many of the cuts affecting divisions focused on human rights, democracy, and civil security.

The office of the Undersecretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights has been dissolved, with responsibilities now folded under a new, less focused Coordinator of Foreign and Humanitarian Affairs. Programs on global women’s rights, diversity and inclusion, and atrocity prevention have been defunded or absorbed into more general roles.

Image 3: People protesting for their democratic freedom. Source: Yahoo Images.

Taken together, this appears to be a conscious effort to deemphasize rights-based diplomacy at a time when such diplomacy is critical for millions of people around the world. From a human rights perspective, this shift represents a failure of positive obligation. Governments that claim leadership in human rights are not merely expected to avoid violations—they are also responsible for upholding, promoting, and defending these rights domestically and internationally.

The United States’ retreat from honest human rights reporting signals that some lives and liberties are no longer worth documenting, let alone defending. This undermines Article 1 of the UDHR itself: that all people are “endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

Instead, the new approach views human rights as selective and strategic tools, rather than universal moral commitments. That’s not just an administrative shift. It’s an ideological one.

Woman with tape over her mouth — Image 4: Woman silenced with tape over her mouth. Source: Yahoo Images.

Conclusion: What Happens When the Witnesses Go Silent?

Human rights reporting isn’t just about keeping records. It’s about bearing witness, recognizing suffering, and giving people living under oppression the affirmation that they are seen. When a government as influential as the United States chooses to omit entire categories of injustice from its global reports, it effectively tells victims: “Your pain doesn’t count.”

In the long arc of justice, documentation is everything. We cannot fight abuses we refuse to name. And we cannot claim to protect rights if we edit them for convenience. If we want to live in a world where power is held accountable, the act of recording the truth must remain sacred. Otherwise, silence becomes complicity—and complicity, policy.

Hungary Leaves the International Criminal Court

Earlier this month, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban declared that the country would withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC), becoming the first European Union member state to pull out of the decades-old global institution. This decision came during Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Hungary, where Orban refused to comply with his ICC-mandated responsibility to arrest the Israeli Prime Minister, thus rejecting the legitimacy of the court’s arrest warrants. Though an individual incident, this event is indicative of a global shift away from international institutions, raising concerns regarding the future and authority of the ICC and global organizations as a whole. As numerous countries, the United States included, fight against democratic backsliding, international law is crucial in ensuring democratic standards are upheld, making this withdrawal worth monitoring.

What is the ICC?

The ICC is a permanent international court designed to prosecute political officials and military members following their initiation or continuation of international law violations, specifically targeting perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. Unlike the International Court of Justice, the United Nations’ branch that pursues cases between nations, the ICC functions independently from any pre-existing international organization and focuses solely on individual responsibility and perpetration of crimes.

The idea of establishing a court of global accountability originated after World War I; however, the largest push came after World War II and the global outrage surrounding the Holocaust. While an international court had yet to be established, ad hoc tribunals were created, prosecuting Nazi military and political officials. In between then and the court’s creation, other ad hoc tribunals have been organized, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. These events popularized the establishment of a permanent, global court. In 1998, the UN General Assembly met in Rome, finalizing a treaty that would then become the Rome Statute, the foundational document of the ICC. 120 countries voted to establish the court, and by 2002, the statute was adopted, gaining the necessary 60 ratifications needed for it to enter into law, thus granting the ICC international legitimacy and authority.

Under the Rome Statute, the ICC is given universal jurisdiction, meaning that perpetrators of international law violations can be tried even if the events occurred in another country. This also grants the court the ability to investigate allegations, with claims being brought to the ICC or based on the suspicions of the institution. If the court finds that an individual has likely played a direct role in the initiation or continuation of a crime outlined by the ICC, an arrest warrant will be issued. As part of ratifying the Rome Statute, member states assume the responsibility to comply with these rulings and are expected to detain those who receive arrest warrants if they enter the nation’s territory. After detention, trials are conducted, and a final ruling is eventually made. Since the court lacks an overarching enforcement mechanism, this organization relies heavily on state compliance to maintain legitimacy. Without this, the ICC loses its prosecutorial power and therefore its purpose.

Large meeting at International Criminal Court. Seats in a semicircle around a large screen and panelists — Image 2: ICC Assembly of States. Source: Yahoo Images

Why is Hungary’s Withdrawal Important?

Though Hungary’s absence won’t single-handedly undermine the ICC’s functional capacity, it does signify the country’s shift away from global institutions and further descent into authoritarianism. Since Orban took office in 2010, the country has become an “illiberal state,” a term Orban uses with pride. This reality is demonstrated in his views on international institutions. When discussing his reasons for withdrawing, Orban expressed that “Hungary has always been half-hearted” on its commitment to what he stated was the “political court” of the ICC. Furthermore, under his regime, Hungary has isolated itself from the democratic values of the European Union, with Orban having captured public institutions and the formerly independent media. He has undermined judicial independence, creating a government oversight committee that tracks the domestic courts and placing partisan judges in politically important positions. Orban has also been consistent in his support of Vladimir Putin, criticizing EU-imposed sanctions on Russia and openly condemning support for Ukraine. These actions have ultimately isolated the country from the Union and its foundational values, thus undermining the EU’s efforts to foster a unified Europe.

Hungary’s rejection of the ICC is also representative of the current global climate, as there has been an international decrease in support for global institutions. Since the issuance of Netanyahu’s arrest warrant, several countries, such as Belgium, Germany, and France, have remained unclear as to whether they would comply with ICC orders, disregarding their responsibility as set out under the Rome Statute. Similarly, Europe has seen a rise in Euroscepticism, or a distrust in the authority of the European Union. This perspective has pervaded several powerful political parties throughout Europe, such as the Alternative for Germany Party in Germany, the Freedom Party in Austria, the Law and Justice Party in Poland, and the Georgian Dream Party in Georgia. These parties have openly criticized the authority granted to the EU and the need for sovereign countries to align their policies with an overarching institution. Meanwhile, numerous countries are reverting to conservative, traditional cultural and political norms, further increasing hesitancy toward a liberal international order that advocates for equality and progressive policies.

This shift is not unique to Europe, as the United States has also been open in its rejection of the ICC and other international institutions. Recently, the Trump administration has placed sanctions on ICC officials, signifying distrust in the court. Furthermore, the US has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Agreement, the World Health Organization, and certain branches of the United Nations. With one of the world’s hegemonic powers withdrawing and delegitimizing international institutions, it is understandable why this perspective has been normalized on a global scale.

Hungarian PM Orban talks at a European Union podium, with EU flags behind him — Image 2: Orban talks at the EU. Source: Yahoo Images

The Case for International Law and the ICC

While many argue that international law and institutions violate a country’s sovereignty, the reality is that this relinquishment can be viewed as necessary to ensure long-term stability. Historically, nations have been seen as fully autonomous, lacking international institutions to follow; however, this autonomy allows countries to encroach on the rights of others, whether domestically or internationally, thus creating instability that jeopardizes the rights and safety of individuals. By surrendering some control over an independent nation to an international body, sovereignty can be enhanced. For example, by allowing international policy to dictate environmental policy, sovereignty could be strengthened by enabling countries to live without fear of climate-related destruction. In the case of the ICC, by granting a global court the authority to enforce international law, egregious behavior can face punishment, hopefully deterring these actions and thus providing greater long-term stability. In other words, relinquishing some domestic power to an international agency can enhance aspects of sovereignty as countries can live without fear of external encroachment on their rights. So, while international law might not yet be perfect, there is an argument to be made that it is worth attempting to fix rather than rejecting it altogether.

Conclusion

Hungary’s withdrawal from the ICC is representative of a broader shift away from the modern-age liberal order. Though its absence won’t directly interfere with the court’s ability to try violators of international law, it does bring into question the future of the ICC and other international institutions, as numerous countries, both within the EU and beyond, see a decline in their support of democratic values and global organizations. However, not all hope is lost; if current member states can uphold their commitments to the Rome Statute, the ICC can remain a powerful authority and deterrent against committing egregious crimes. In doing so, trust in the ICC can be consolidated, ensuring it and other global organizations play a role in the future of international politics. Because of this potential, international law remains a cause worth advocating for, as it can help ensure long-term stability during a time of global uncertainty.

Election Integrity in Romania

The Romanian November presidential elections have prompted many questions about democracy and election integrity within the nation. After the elections were conducted, it was reported that independent and wildcard candidate Calin Georgescu garnered 22.94% of votes and won by plurality; however, this outcome has since been annulled and the second round of voting has been canceled. Romanian courts and intelligence have cited alleged Russian interference, questionable campaign finance practices, and inappropriate use of the social-media app TikTok as reasons for rejection. While the elections have been rescheduled, many Romanian citizens remain concerned about their country’s ability to conduct free and fair elections going forward, thus leading to apprehension regarding Romanian democracy. Similarly, the suspected Russian involvement in the election warrants further examination.

Romanian voters cast their ballot during the 2024 elections. They are in a classroom set up to turn in ballots. — Image 1: Romanian citizens cast their ballots. Source: Yahoo Images

Presidential Elections

The Romanian presidential elections were held on November 24, 2024. While many well-established candidates ran for this position, the winner, having achieved 22.94% of the votes, was Calin Georgescu, an independent candidate. Prior to the election, polls estimated a 5th-place finish for Georgescu, resulting in greater shock at his victory. Similarly, his policies are at odds with many of the other candidates, as he vowed to distance the country from global organizations such as the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Georgescu gained much of his notoriety from TikTok, where he gained popularity by attracting young voters, targeting voters’ frustrations, and spreading misinformation. He also encouraged his supporters to share his content and allegedly paid users to promote his campaign without disclosing the partnership. Since Georgescu gained a plurality, he was moved into the second round of voting, competing against second-place and popular candidate Elena Lasconi.

On December 2nd, the Romanian courts requested that the votes be recounted; however, the reason for this was not made public. Even though a recount was underway, the courts insisted that second-round voting would continue and that no evidence suggested that Georgescu’s victory was invalid. Many citizens question the conduct used to carry out the recount, as no guidelines were publicly declared regarding how this analysis would occur.

Calin Georgescu is surrounded by reporters and microphones, being interviewed following his first place win in the recent elections — Image 2: Calin Georgescu is interviewed following his first-place victory. Source: Yahoo Images

Annulled Results

On December 6th, two days before the runoff election, the initial results were annulled and the second round of voting was canceled after Romanian intelligence declared that the election was undermined. Interference was found through cyber activities, most notably through TikTok, where authorities allege that the social media app gave Georgescu “preferential treatment.” Furthermore, officials suggest that fake, Russian-made accounts bolstered Georgescu’s page into popularity as it led to increased engagement and content circulation. With Romanian courts arguing that citizens have an inherent right to access accurate information about candidates, this rampant sharing of misinformation, allegedly encouraged by foreign influences, meant that this right was undermined, and thus warranted the results be annulled. Other sources of online Russian collusion were cited as reasons to cancel the election and reject its results. However, evidence and further explanation have not been revealed to the public. While Russia has ultimately rejected these claims, it has since led the European Union to enact stricter social media campaign regulations.

Campaign finance issues were also uncovered, with authorities finding that candidates reported receiving and spending zero dollars throughout the course of the campaign trail. Officials imply the use of third-party financing, where money is sent through various accounts so that its origin remains unknown. This goes against standards set out by domestic Romanian law and the European Union, where campaign funding sources are expected to be disclosed. With these standards in place, Romanian courts argue that annulling the election results further signals its desire to uphold democratic principles along with domestic and regional legislation.

New elections will be held on May 4th and 18th. Regardless, many citizens continue to protest for free and fair elections, as the annulment has led many citizens to question the nation’s electoral capabilities. In the meantime, President Klaus Iohannis will remain in power. As of now, it is unclear if Georgescu will be allowed to partake.

Countless protestors rally outside government building, carrying Romanian flags — Image 3: Romanian citizens protest for free and fair elections. Source: Yahoo Images

Geopolitical Incentives

While there isn’t enough evidence to prove that Russian sources interfered in the Romanian elections, there are reasons to explain why Russia might have an interest in influencing the outcome. For starters, under a parliamentary system, the president plays a significant role in foreign policy, as they ratify international treaties, initiate or disband diplomatic missions, and communicate with foreign leaders. If Russia were to want to create warmer relations with Romania, influencing who becomes president would play an important role in achieving this goal. Another objective could be to distance the country from Western institutions, such as the European Union and the North Atlantic Trade Organization. By promoting Georgescu, a candidate who openly blames such organizations for the country’s problems, Russia can undermine trust in these institutions, ones that shame Moscow for its imperialist and authoritarian actions. Furthermore, Romania is home to critical NATO infrastructure, such as the largest NATO military base in Europe. This base strengthens NATO’s position on the Black Sea, an area where Russia poses military dominance.

These reasons also tie into the Russia-Ukraine War. Throughout the course of this conflict, Romania has made great military contributions to support Ukraine. To achieve a victory in its imperialist conquest of Ukraine, Russia might find it beneficial to undermine Romania’s support for its neighboring country.

Impacts on Democracy

The recent election annulment could have a great impact on the state of democracy in Romania. Though much consolidation has occurred since its commitment to democracy in 1991, the nation is still working on strengthening its democratic institutions. Because of this, the choices made by the Romanian government going forward could have long-lasting ramifications, such as weakening trust in such institutions. The Romanian courts argue that its decision was meant to align the nation further with the EU and to restore trust in its electoral process, but this has clearly not been the case. However, democracy could be further consolidated if this issue begins to be handled with transparency. By showcasing to Romanian citizens that Russian or other foreign involvement was found and terminated, it can indicate that the government had the ability to identify and remove election collusion. Furthermore, releasing intelligent reports and investigations provides necessary transparency during a political crisis that can reinforce trust in democracy and the government. Lastly, directing more resources to civil society groups can lead to the creation of safeguards against further interference. While it seems that Romania is on the cusp of democratic backsliding, by moving forward with transparency, the government can demonstrate its self-declared commitment to democracy.

Conclusion

The recent annulment of the Romanian election results has triggered many questions regarding electoral integrity within the country. Campaign finance inconsistencies, the sharing of misinformation, and alleged Russian involvement, through both TikTok and other undisclosed sources are at the root of this political crisis. While this prompts many questions regarding the validity of other elections and overall national security, by moving forward with transparency, the government can further strengthen its democratic institutions and regain its citizens’ trust. If not, the nation could risk democratic backsliding, which is being seen in various European countries. Similarly, given its proximity to Ukraine, Romania is at risk of being caught in the crossfire if this alleged Russian collusion is found to be accurate and nothing is done to prevent it. Overall, to ensure Romania remains committed to democracy, international attention is warranted.

Democratic Backsliding in Georgia

In recent months, the country of Georiga has seen an increase in anti-democratic policies and government behavior, distancing the nation from Western states and institutions and further aligning itself with Russia and its allies. While political tension has been building within the country over the past decade, the passage of new policies, such as the Foreign Agent Bill and the LGBT Propaganda Bill, has taken this to new heights, receiving domestic and global condemnation as these programs fall in line with authoritarian initiatives taken in other countries. This prefaces the October 2024 parliamentary elections, where the incumbent Georgian Dream Party received a majority of the votes. However, due to the alleged use of voter intimidation and fraud, this result has been widely contested. These events have triggered mass demonstrations throughout the nation as citizens question the state of democracy within Georgia. Due to their longstanding history with Russia and the undemocratic nature of new policies, the events in Georiga warrant monitoring to ensure democracy remains.

Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze speaks in front of Georgian and European Union flags — Image 1: Georgian Dream Party chairman and Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze speaks at an event. Source: Yahoo Images

History of the Georgian Dream Party

The policy platform and support of the Georgian Dream Party have seen a notable shift throughout its time in office. The party was founded in 2012 and quickly rose to prominence, receiving enough votes to oust the former administration later that year. During its conception, the party’s primary objectives were to improve relations with Western states and to join international organizations such as the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, while also opening up friendly communications with Russia. Popularity for these policies led to the party gaining an absolute majority in parliament in 2016, however; support dwindled following corruption scandals. Later in this administration, a Russian lawmaker was invited to join a Georgian parliamentary meeting, a decision that was met with great upset. Largescale demonstrations erupted as citizens protested the encroachment of Russian influence in their national institutions, rejecting the potential for future Russian involvement. Regardless, the Georgian Dream party won again in 2020 as it promised to take the necessary steps to join the EU. However, this commitment was halted in 2022, when the relationship between Russia-Georgian relations has seemingly strengthened since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. While numerous countries enacted economic sanctions on Russia, Georiga did not follow suit. Similarly, trade and travel have grown between the countries since 2022.

Not only has the Georgian Dream Party strayed away from its original policy promises, but officials have also begun to spread harmful rhetoric and enact undemocratic policies. In the leadup to the October 2024 elections, the administration promoted that a “Global War Party” was the reason behind the invasion of Ukraine. This theory suggests that Western states are purposefully trying to prolong the war to weaken the Georgian state. The party has also recently passed the Foreign Agent Bill and the LGBT Propaganda Bill, both of which undermine core democratic principles. Though the Georgian Dream Party has not been free of problems, it is clear that, within the past few years, drastic changes have brought the country further away from democracy.

Democratic Backsliding

Foreign Agent Bill

On August 1st, 2024, the Foreign Agent Bill was passed. This piece of legislation requires that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive 20% or more of their total funding from international sources must label themselves as companies “pursuing the interest of a foreign power.” Georgia is home to thousands of NGOs, with many monitoring compliance to democratic standards and ensuring there is no return to its communist past. It is estimated that 90% of NGOs would fall under this category, thus undermining the validity of countless institutions and organizations. Furthermore, this bill primarily targets civil society and media organizations. Businesses are exempt from receiving this label, regardless of the percentage of foreign funding. While the Georgian government claims that this policy promotes transparency, the rhetoric that officials use when talking about NGOs suggests otherwise. In a speech given in April 2024, a prominent political figure explained how NGOs “do not love their country or their people because they do not really consider them to be their own”. Between the language used when discussing NGOs and the timing of the bill, many speculate that the purpose of this legislation is to undermine the credibility of opposition and pro-democracy groups, being enacted only 3 months before the 2024 elections.

LGBTQ+ advocates protest for their rights, with one woman wearing a pride flag, and a man holding a poster saying how he wants his country back — Image 2: LGBTQ+ advocates protest against Georgian policies. Source: Yahoo Images

LGBT Propaganda Law

Passed into law only one month after the foreign agent bill, the LGBT Propaganda Law seeks extreme measures to ensure the protection of heterosexuality. Not only does it codify marriage between men and women, but it also bans LGBTQ+ members from adopting children, limits their representation in media, and monitors community events. Furthermore, it overrides anti-discrimination hiring policies and prohibits gender reassignment surgery. The implementation of this bill faced local and international condemnation. Within Georgia, opposition parties criticized the inherent discrimination at the core of the legislation. Similarly, the European Union warns that this legislation threatens the nation’s chances of becoming a member state. The combination of both these bills has raised questions regarding Georgia’s alliances, with many pointing out how these laws signal alignment with Russia over Western powers.

October 2024 Parliamentary Elections

On October 26, 2024, Georgia held its parliamentary elections, where Georgian Dream, the long-standing incumbent party, won a majority. However, these results have been widely contested, with the nation’s own president, Salome Zurabishvili, refusing to recognize the validity of the results. One reason backing these claims is the alleged use of voter intimidation tactics by the Georgian Dream party. Voters discuss cameras monitoring polling booths and the display of a Georgian Dream politician presenting a speech being aired directly outside polling stations. The passing of the Foreign Agent Bill has also warranted concerns as this legislation impacted the credibility of election monitoring organizations and groups ensuring democratic compliance. Furthermore, many changes were made to the electoral system in the months before the election, with this being the first election where parties must receive 5% of the vote to have representation in the parliament, and the first election using an electric ballot counting system. Regardless of these questions surrounding the validity of the election, domestic courts have refused to annul the results or to initiate a recount. Despite its alleged election rigging, the Georgian Dream Party still declares itself victorious. It has also declared a halt to its efforts to join the European Union, causing even more discontent amongst the population.

Protests and Government Responses

These unaddressed concerns triggered a nationwide uproar, with protests fighting for democracy throughout the country. Beginning in early November, these protests demanded that new elections be held in compliance with democratic standards. President Zurabishvili has supported these efforts, protesting alongside Georgian citizens. These protests have continued since the election. Georgian police have reacted with force, unleashing tear gas, water cannons, and rubber bullets on peaceful protestors. Arrested over 20 individuals. The government has also enacted legislation that imposes restrictions on protestors, such as fining those caught hanging posters and stickers in public areas. These acts have also granted Georgian police the ability to proactively detain individuals they suspect will violate these limitations. While Georgian citizens continue to fight for and protect their democracy, it is clear that the current administration is taking steps to silence these voices.

Conclusion

Georgia is experiencing a period of democratic backsliding as the current administration passes authoritarian-leaning legislation and distances itself from Western powers. Though it has never been void of issues, Georgian democracy has drastically weakened in the past few months, resulting in a contested election that reinstated power in the hands of the Georgian Dream Party. Legislation enacted throughout 2024 has also reduced the likelihood that Georgia will be able to join the EU. This backsliding follows a similar trend toward authoritarianism throughout Europe, seen in countries such as Hungary, Romania, Austria, and Poland, and raises concerns over a regional and global weakening of democracy. Similarly, Georgia’s previous relations with Russia make this issue more pressing and in demand of attention.

Pro-Democracy Activist Jimmy Lai’s Case and The History of Hong Kong

A man standing in front of Hong Kong protesters pointing out. — Image 1: A man standing in front of Hong Kong protesters pointing up to the sky. Source: Yahoo Image.

In recent years, many freedoms of Hong Kong citizens have been stripped away. Once a British colony now under the rule of Beijing, legislation has restricted the voice of its journalists and activists.

Critiques of the Hong Kong and Chinese government are met with an iron fist. New laws such as the National Security Law and Article 23 law have limited what can and cannot be said in public and media. Consequently, activist such as Jimmy Lai have fallen victim to these new laws.

Historical Background of Hong Kong, The National Security Law, and Article 23

Image 2: Protesters in Hong Kong. Source: Yahoo Image.

Britain acquired Hong Kong after the first Opium War with China, under the Treaty of Nanjing 1842. Negotiations of Hong Kong took place in 1984, with the signing of the Joint Declaration. In 1990, the Basic Law was completed which served as a mini-constitution for Hong Kong. The former British Colony was officially turned back over to the People’s Republic of China on July 1, 1997.

Beijing had promised Hong Kong a “One Country, Two Systems” rule and to continue their political practices for 50 more years. However, after an economic crisis in Hong Kong, Beijing sought to implement strict regulations in 2003. The National Security Law was proposed to be added to the Basic Law, but half a million Hong Kong citizens marched in protest. The bill was unable to be passed due to the pushback.

Despite citizens’ displeasure with the proposal in 2003, 17 years later, the National Security Law was put into place. This has heavily restricted many freedoms that people in Hong Kong partook in previously. The crackdown of this law came in the form of dozens of activists being arrested. In recent years, the recognition of the Tiananmen Square Massacre has been censored. With that, people are no longer permitted to hold vigils in memory of those who died during the protest. Beijing has frequently been exercising their authority to interpret the Basic Law in Hong Kong.

The Basic Laws are similar to a mini-constitution for Hong Kong. The Nationals Security Law (NSL) was passed in 2020. This heavily restricts Hong Konger’s rights to protests and freedom of speech and expression. Because of this new law, the Hong Kong government was able to pass Article 23. This article, officially called Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, creates new offenses, heavier prison sentences, and stronger enforcement for violations of national security. The law adopts mainland China’s definition of “State security threats” and “State secrets” which encompasses almost anything. The law is up for interpretation, but only the interpretation of the Hong Kong government and Beijing.

Who is Jimmy Lai? What is he charged with?

Image 3: Jimmy Lai standing with police officer holding his arm. Source: Yahoo Image.

Jimmy Lai first came to Hong Kong in 1961 at the age of 12. After having fled from Communist China, Lai had arrived at a colonized Hong Kong. Because of its national status at the time, he is considered a British National. As a child, Lai worked as a child laborer in a clothing factory, persevering through years of working in harsh conditions. By 1981, Lai opened a chain clothing store called Giordano. Through this Jimmy Lai became extremely successful.

As a result of the events at the Tiananmen Square Massacre, Lai began to dedicate his life to activism for human rights (see my blog post about China for an in-depth look into the Tiananmen Square Massacre and its influence on activists in Hong Kong and China). In 1995, he opened a newspaper called Apple Daily. Frequently, this pro-democracy media outlet would criticize the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

On August 10, 2020, Jimmy Lai was arrested and in December 2020, he was charged with three counts of foreign collusion and one charge for sedition. For four years, Lai has been detained in the conditions that violate many human rights. According to Amnesty International, Lai has been subjected to solitary confinement and is allowed outside for less than an hour a day.

Jimmy Lai’s international legal team has reported that Lai, a Catholic, has been denied his freedom to practice his religion. In an interview conducted by Nick Schifrin, International Human Rights Lawyer, Caoilfhionn Gallagher said, “He’s also a devout Roman Catholic being denied access to the sacrament of holy communion.” While his legal team continues to fight for his release, Gallagher emphasizes the imperative danger that Lai is in of losing his life.

Lai’s son, Sebastien Lai, also spoke out about his father. In the interview, he worries about the passing of his father while in prison. Sebastien said that his ultimate goal was to see his father out of prison before his death. Despite their best hopes the chances of the case against Jimmy Lai being dropped are slim. Sebastien reflects on the memory of his father, “My memory of my father is always of this man smiling, because he knew that, despite all of this, he was doing the right thing.” This quote summarizes the kind of person Jimmy Lai is. One that fights for his freedoms and the freedoms of the people around him. Lai had not hesitated, in any of the times he was released on bail, to continue to attend Tiananmen vigils and stand up for democracy and freedom of speech.

The Lai Trial and November 20th Resumption Update

Image 4: Jimmy Lai in handcuffs being escorted. Source: Yahoo Image.

The long awaited trial of pro-democracy advocate, Jimmy Lai, began on December 18, 2023. Lai had been held in custody awaiting his trial for over 1,000 days due to delays from Beijing over their interpretation of the national security law. Beijing ultimately decided that Lai would not be allowed his choice of a British lawyer.

A trial that was only supposed to last 80 days, ran until June 11, 2024. The court was unable to have the mid-trial submission until July 24-25. Since then, the court has been adjourned until November 20, 2024.

In another case, Hong Kong rejected Jimmy Lai’s request for a jury trial in early October 2024. This was in response to Jimmy Lai bringing a case against Ta Kung Pao, a pro-Bejing newspaper, in November 2020. Ta Kung Pao had published defamatory statements regarding Lai in June 2020. In the article, Ta Kung Pao accused Lai of trying to escape and create chaos within Hong Kong. Unfortunately, Judge Queeny Au Yeung rejected Lai’s request, stating that the legal documents needed further in-depth examination.

The court case for the national security trial resumed on November 20 with the testimony of Lai. In the charges of collusion with foreign forces, Lai pleaded not guilty. Hong Kong’s Prosecutor Anthony Chau insisted that Lai was asking other countries, specifically the United States, to impose sanctions and encourage hostilities against Hong Kong and China.

In his first court testimony, Lai stated that it was not his intention to manipulate foreign policy in the United States to be hostile towards China and Hong Kong. This was in response to the prosecution bringing forth evidence of Lai’s “collusion with foreign forces” in a meeting he had with Vice President Mike Pence and secretary of state Mike Pompeo during Donald J. Trump’s presidency in July 2019.

Lai said that all he did was answer honestly of what was happening in Hong Kong when asked. In relation to his newspaper Apple Daily, Lai denies advocating for Hong Kong’s independence. He also reiterated that any conversations held with Officials from other countries were strictly professional. Lai further stated that the National Security Law would bring about the end of free speech in Hong Kong.

Conclusion: What is the international reaction? What can be done to help Lai and others?

The trial will continue throughout November while the rest of the world awaits the fate of Jimmy Lai. Amnesty International continues to call for the release of Jimmy Lai. Both the U.K. and the U.S. have criticized Beijing for the imprisonment of Lai. Beijing in response, has condemned the U.S. on its involvement with a “threat to the security of Hong Kong and China.” They have also stated that the U.K. should stay out of all legal processes.

“Support Jimmy Lai” is an online website that has been keeping track of Lai’s case. On the website they provide case updates and a timeline of Lai’s life. They ask people to show support by using the hashtag #FreeJimmyLai. If you would like to donate to the cause or for more information check out “Support Jimmy Lai.”

An Analysis of Voting Rights and Infringements: Pakistan

Pakistan’s Political Landscape

Pakistan is a unique country amalgamating diverse ethnicities, religions, regional dynamics, and political ideologies. Upon independence from British Colonial rule in 1947, Pakistan had experienced periods of military dictatorships interspersed with democratic governance.

The creation of Pakistan’s democratic foundation is accredited to President Ayub Khan. He worked to create the Elective Bodies Disqualification Order of 1959; this was created to help prevent “free-for-all” fighting among politicians, having a negative impact on the country. Through this order, the beginning of the democratic order began, with the increased role of the civil bureaucracy and increased central authority. This order did not come without criticism, especially from the lay citizens; through the order, individuals were not incentivized to participate democratically in the country’s politics.

Photo of Benazir Bhutto attending an election rally. Source: Flickr

A Turning Point in Pakistan’s Democratic Framework

The trajectory of Bangladesh’s secession from Pakistan demonstrates the complex interplay of socio-political forces. General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan, succeeding Ayub Khan, led Pakistan’s military regime from 1969 to 1971 amidst a backdrop of enduring military rule, reflecting a nation grappling with its identity; this was very different from the approach Ayub Khan had taken. The 1970 general elections, a watershed moment, laid bare the fissures of regionalism and social discord, with the Awami League ‘s electoral triumph in East Pakistan highlighting demands for provincial autonomy. Meanwhile, in West Pakistan, the Pakistan People’s Party’s populist surge under Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto reshaped the political landscape, overshadowing traditional Islamic parties; however, fears of East Pakistani dominance spurred a political conspiracy thwarting the Awami League’s ascension, triggering armed rebellion and Indian intervention, culminating in the birth of Bangladesh in 1971 amid the throes of conflict.

Modern Implications of Political Success

The subsequent democratic experiment, marked by Bhutto’s ascendancy and ousting under General Zia-ul-Haq’s military rule, underscored Pakistan’s struggle for stability. Bhutto’s governance failed to bridge the chasm between rhetoric and reality, highlighting the entrenched power dynamics between civilians and the military. Even with elections, Pakistan’s democratic fabric remained frayed, with presidents wielding disproportionate influence compared to that of the prime minister. Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif and their descendants oscillated between who would be in power; this tumultuous change, albeit frequent, perpetuated a cycle of disillusionment and distrust among its citizenry. As subsequent administrations navigated the murky waters of power politics, from the restoration of parliamentary supremacy to Musharraf’s coup, the quest for a stable, inclusive democracy persists amidst the crucible of Pakistan’s diverse socio-political landscape.

Photo of previous prime minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan. — Photo of the previous prime minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan. Source: Flickr

2024 Elections

The foundation laid by historical nuances resulted in a unique 2024 election for the country. It all started in 2018 when Imran Khan, leader of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), was elected as the prime minister of Pakistan; after four years, however, Imran Khan was removed by the political opposition in a no-confidence vote. This vote followed Khan’s perceived economic mismanagement of the country, as inflation was at an all-time high, and the Pakistani rupee was plummeting alongside foreign currency. In addition, his commentary on foreign affairs, especially alongside Russia-US and China-US relations, were clauses of removal. Shehbaz Sharif, leader of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML), was then sworn in. Shortly after his removal from office, Imran Khan was sentenced to prison on terms of corruption, followed by a lengthened sequence on suspicion of leaking state secrets. The turbulence superseded the 2024 general election and contributed to allegations of political rigging and delayed results.

Results started on February 8th, when polls opened, demonstrated that PTI had a majority vote; many candidates had to run independently, so when there was no clear majority party, it was assumed that PTI maintained the majority vote. This was echoed by the Election Commission of Pakistan as well. This, however, was not reported, which raised suspicions and alluded to manipulation and political interference by external entities; comments were also rescinded from the Election Commission of Pakistan, resulting in concerns about the true results.

Amidst the election, the apolitical role of division commissioners had come under scrutiny amid concerns over their potential influence on election proceedings; despite official assertions of their non-involvement, apprehensions arose due to the appointment of electoral officers from within the hierarchy below a commissioner, raising suspicions of undue interference. This likely contributed to the hypothesized widespread electoral malpractice this past election. Urgent calls for a thorough investigation were prominent to understand the turn of events.

Internationally, the Free and Fair Election Network (FAFEN) reported widespread obstruction of election observers and candidates in accessing crucial tabulation processes, casting doubt on the integrity of electoral outcomes this past February. FAFEN’s appeal for meticulous scrutiny of contested constituencies using advanced analytical methods underscores the imperative of upholding electoral legitimacy, echoing similar demands from political stakeholders.

Human Right Implications

As seen with the 2024 election, speculations, potential interference, and lack of transparency prevent voter’s voices from being uplifted in the election process. Without protections of free, fair, and honest elections, individuals cannot participate democratically. As seen with Pakistan, a long history of concerns about election malpractice decreases trust in the government and current democratic systems. It is important for Pakistan and future leaders to address underlying challenges to help foster a culture of accountability and integrity, helping pave the way for a representative democracy that will upload the voices of its citizens.

The Unrest in Haiti: Country in Crisis

By Jayla S. Carr

Political History

Haitis political challenges can be traced back to its revolutionary past. Following independence, the country faced the daunting task of establishing a functional government amid the ruins of colonial rule. The unmountable debt given to the Country of Haiti from its former colonial power, France, coupled with internal power struggles, set the stage for a volatile political environment that persists.

Haiti has a long history of corrupt leaders, the most notorious of whom were Francois Duvalier, also known as Papa Doc, and his son Jean Claude-Duvalier (Baby Doc), who ruled the country from the 1950s to the 1980s. The Duvalier family was known for its extravagant spending and mishandling of Haiti’s funds. Their regime was characterized by authoritarianism and totalitarian rule, and they used techniques such as extortion, repression, and embezzlement of government funds to maintain their grip on power.

Following the reign of the Duvaliers in Haiti, the country became even more susceptible to natural disasters, especially earthquakes and hurricanes, which further increased its economic vulnerabilities. The devastating earthquake that occurred in 2010 drew attention to the precariousness of Haiti’s infrastructure, leading to widespread destruction and loss of life. The subsequent challenges in rebuilding efforts imposed additional strain on the nations already fragile economy, further impeding its capacity to provide essential services and support its citizens. The earthquake has left many citizens, even years later, without stable housing or work.

Since then, Haitis government has experienced numerous periods of political instability, marked by changes in leadership, coup d’états, and challenges to governance structures. Frequent government changes have hindered the establishment of long-term policies and sustainable development initiatives.

Armed soldiers running away from protestors. Credit: Richard Pierrin/Getty Images

Present Crisis

Civil unrest was ignited in Haiti in 2018 when the government announced its intention to eliminate fuel subsidies. The situation was further exacerbated by several contributing factors, including the misuse of loans from Venezuela, social inequality, substandard living conditions, and, well into 2020, the poor management of the COVID-19 pandemic. President Jovenel Moïse faced criticism for seeking to extend his term amid allegations of police brutality, human rights abuses, and violence against protesters. Following Moïses assassination in 2021, the country’s period of crisis has only been exacerbated.

The country has been overrun with gangs and has excelled to new levels, with the gangs taking over and now moving into the country capital, Port Au Prince, a prison near the country capital, and letting out 4,000 prisoners. Many of the country cities were already not safe due to brutal violence such as sexual assault and killings happening daily. Two hundred thousand plus citizens have been displaced from their homes due to the escalating violence. Haiti is home to over 4 million citizens, but the number of police in the country is around 13,000. This massive imbalance of police to citizens has made it very hard for Haitis Political Officials to establish any order within the country.

A white building with domed roofs and a green gate. Credit: Wikipedia

State of Emergency

Haiti declared a State of Emergency on March 3^rd, The United States evacuated its Embassy, and the Regional leaders of the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) held an emergency summit to discuss the Haiti crisis and establish a framework for a stable political transition. Furthermore, the President of Guyana, Irfaan Ali, commented on the meeting and let it be known that at the summit, plans were agreed upon to create a 7 to 9-member transitional government comprised of Haiti’s major political parties. The council will be in place and responsible for selecting a new prime minister. Recently, According to NBC News, the council has stated that its creation is almost complete. The group hopes to restore Haiti and put it back on the path to legitimate democracy.

According to Al Jazeera, over 200 gangs are operating in Haiti, with two of the most extensive coalitions claiming Port-Au-Prince as their territory. The most infamous and the one who is making news waves is the leader Jimmy “Barbecue” Cherizer of the G9 gang, a former Haiti police officer who has been pushing for the resignation of Haiti Prime Minister Ariel Henry, whom former President Moise appointed. As of March 12, 2024, at the height of the violence and within days of the country calling for a state of emergency, Prime Minister Ariel Henry announced that he would be stepping down and “leave immediately after the inauguration of a new council.” However, Jimmy Barbecue does not like the idea and will resist the implementation unless he is given a seat at the council table. He has stated that the corruption of the “traditional politicians” has not done Haiti any good and are the ones “damaging the country.”

Since the state of emergency was announced the United Nations has estimated that 53,000 Haitians have fled the capital of Port-Au-Prince in March. Also, 1.64 million men, women, and children are facing severe acute malnutrition due to the rise of gang violence has only exacerbated the crisis. The percentage of those who rely on humanitarian aide for food has only increased. Before the crisis, Haiti’s urban and rural communities had long relied on their city and town markets, which are sustained mainly by the work of Madan Saras, the women of Haiti who buy, distribute, and sell food and other essentials in these markets, serving as the lifeline of the communities. Still, unfortunately, they have become targets for gang violence, especially in recent times. The gangs seek to assert their power over the towns, and thus, the markets have become a hotbed of criminal activity, which has contributed to the decimation of Haiti’s economy. This is just one example among many of the challenges the people of Haiti face.

A group of people holding a flag. Credit: Guerinault Louis / Anadolu via Getty Images

Path of Uncertainty

Still, despite the council’s creation, a finalized plan has yet to be developed to assure Haiti and its citizens of a peaceful and stable environment. Kenya’s plans to assist the country and bring in military aid have been stalled, and the country’s future is uncertain. The government has been distressed for many years, and the plan to restore stability will require continued effort.

Several organizations are assisting the people of Haiti in the amid unrest. Here are a few of them:

Hope for Haiti Foundation

Hands up for Haiti

Global Giving has information about several ongoing projects in Haiti aimed at assisting citizens.

Unraveling the Injustices in West Papua

By Jayla S. Carr

The region of West Papua has been plagued by a complex web of struggles and injustices that have left indelible marks on its society. These issues are deeply rooted in the region’s colonial past and have been compounded by ongoing struggles for self-determination, discrimination, and egregious human rights abuses. The people of West Papua continue to grapple with the multifaceted challenges posed by these historical injustices, and their struggle for justice and equality remains ongoing.

The Challenges of Self-determination

The Act of Free Choice that took place in 1969 was a significant event in the history of West Papua. At the time, the territory was under Indonesian rule, and a process was initiated to determine the status of West Papua. The process was organized under international pressure but lacked genuine representation and transparency. The participating representatives represented only 1 percent of the West Papuan population, and there were allegations of coercion. The Act of Free Choice has been a lasting source of frustration for West Papuans. It was seen as a profoundly flawed process, symbolizing a profound historical injustice. The vote was conducted in a minimal scope, with only 1,022 handpicked representatives voting. These representatives were pressured to vote in favor of Indonesian rule, and there were even allegations of torture and intimidation. The Act of Free Choice has been a contentious issue ever since. Many West Papuans believe that the process was rigged and that they were denied their right to self-determination. The vote was not conducted fairly and transparently, and the outcome was predetermined. The legacy of the Act of Free Choice continues to resonate, and it remains an important issue for West Papuans seeking justice and recognition.

The Flag of West Papua. A flag with blue and white strips with a red stripe and a star.

Marginalization and Discrimination

Indigenous Papuans have faced systematic discrimination, resulting in stark socio-economic disparities. Unequal access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunities has entrenched a sense of disenfranchisement. Policies favoring non-Papuan migrants further contribute to marginalization exacerbating tensions and perpetuating historical injustices that affect the fabric of Papuan society. Al Jazeera News, reports that the government of Indonesia created a transmigration program that has been moving others from around the country to the Indigenous West Papuan lands, forcing them out of their own.

Cultural suppression in West Papua has taken various forms, and one of the most prominent ones is the restriction placed on indigenous languages and practices. The Indonesian government’s imposition of a dominant Indonesian culture over the diverse cultural landscape of West Papua is perceived as a significant threat to the rich tapestry of Papuan cultural identity. As a result, the Papuan population has been resisting attempts to assimilate them into a broader Indonesian identity for decades.

Recognizing and preserving West Papua’s unique cultural heritage cannot be overstated. The region is home to over 250 distinct indigenous groups, each with its language, customs, and traditions. The suppression of these cultures has had a severe impact on the Papuan people, leading to a loss of cultural identity and a sense of dislocation. Despite the challenges, there are ongoing efforts to preserve and promote Papuan culture. Organizations such as the Papuan Hope Language Institute are working to document endangered languages, while others are advocating for the recognition of customary laws and practices. These efforts are crucial in ensuring that the rich cultural heritage of West Papua is preserved and remembered.

A group of people holding a banner. Credit: Wikimedia Commons /Nichollas Harrison.

Exploitation and Economic Disparities

West Papuan natives argue that they have not received proportional benefits from economic activities, particularly mining and logging. Military operations that displace indigenous Papuans pave the way for extractive industries and Indonesian settlers, which exacerbates instability and makes it difficult for people to work and earn a living due to the constant threat of violence.

The United Nations human rights experts have been advocating for access to the area to investigate reports of human rights violations. The Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights estimates that between 60,000 and 100,000 people have been internally displaced since 2018. West Papuans have experienced racism ranging from common insults such as “monyet,” meaning monkey, to active discrimination, limiting their business opportunities and making them feel like second-class citizens. Environmental degradation further exacerbates their struggles and negatively impacts traditional livelihoods. Addressing these economic imbalances is crucial to promoting sustainable development and redressing historical injustices in the region.

Movements and Resistance

The Indonesian government’s actions have increased military presence in the region and led to the emergence of West Papuan movements such as the National Committee for West Papua(KNPB) and the Free Papua Movement (Organisasi Papua Merdeka or OPM). The OPM advocates for independence, which has led to occasional violence and clashes between pro-independence groups and the Indonesian military.

Reports of human rights abuses by the Indonesian security forces have been persistent in West Papua. Violence, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests, and restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly contribute to a climate of fear. The systematic nature of these abuses underlines the urgent need to address human rights concerns as an integral part of rectifying historical injustices in the region. Since the annexation of West Papua in the 1960’s, over 100,000 civilians have been killed in the indigenous land. The most known tragedy was the Biak Massacre in 1998, where tensions between the West Papuan people and the Indonesian military came to a boil. The total number of state forces deployed in the region remains classified. However, Papua and West Papua provinces are known to have the country’s most significant presence of Indonesian troops.

Protestors holding flag and raising their fists . Credit: Ulet Ifansasti/Getty Images

Conclusion

The historical injustices embedded in West Papua’s past are intricate and interconnected, requiring a nuanced approach to resolution. A comprehensive strategy should acknowledge the complexities of colonial legacies, contested political processes, discrimination, human rights abuses, cultural suppression, and economic disparities. It is crucial to draw international attention, promote meaningful dialogue, and make concerted efforts to establish justice, equality, and self-determination in West Papua. This is necessary to rectify historical injustices and pave the way for a more inclusive and sustainable future in the region. The Free West Papua Campaign website is a great resource to learn about organizations actively working towards this goal, and you can even donate to support their cause.

Here are some websites offering more information about this blog post

Indigenous Peoples Major Group for Sustainable Development

Free West Papua Campaign

Poland: Human Rights Implications of the Recent Election

by Jillian Matthews

Poland is a highly polarized nation, with many valuing tradition, culture, and national identity. The combination of these three components, along with repeated rightwing electoral victories, has led to the democratic backsliding of the country, seen in their overreaching policies regarding women’s reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and judicial reform. Although many human rights violations have happened throughout the country in the past few decades, the results from the most recent election, held on October 15, 2023, have the potential to expand rights to more citizens in the country. To properly describe its importance, I will explain the political context surrounding this recent election before moving on to discuss the future administration and its potential impacts on human rights.

Political Context

Even while under communist rule, Poland has been a predominantly Catholic state, with an overwhelming majority continuing to practice Catholicism today. Traditional Catholic values continue to influence Poland’s political policies and the opinions of many citizens. This influence is most notably seen in the rise of the Law and Justice Party (PiS), with its social policies rooted in Catholic norms and having close relations with the Catholic Church. Up until the October election, PiS controlled the government and had, since 2015, used its eight years of authority to undermine democracy and human rights. These influences have shaped the repressive policies on issues such as women’s autonomy, LGBTQ+ rights, and judicial practices. Listed below are the current status of these issues, showing the political climate leading into the 2023 election.

Women’s Bodily Autonomy

Under the current administration, abortion has continued to be a huge issue. While abortion was essentially banned in 1993, a 2020 amendment tightened restrictions even further. The recent change eliminated the option for abortion even when the fetus is known to have developmental problems or health conditions incompatible with life outside the womb. Prior to the ban, around 90% of all abortions performed in Poland happened for one of these two reasons: after 2020, women were required to carry even unviable pregnancies to term. While abortions are allowed when the life of the mother is threatened, this doesn’t mean that doctors will provide the necessary care. Countless stories have been recorded of Polish doctors overlooking women’s birth complications, favoring the life of the child, even when the child is unlikely to survive and the mother is likely to die or suffer lifelong complications.

Polish women protest for their bodily autonomy. Source: Yahoo Images

In cases where an abortion is not deemed essential to save the life of the mother, doctors who carry out abortions are subject to punishment. If caught aiding an abortion, . This puts women and their doctors in a dangerous position, with women unable to access necessary help and doctors unable to provide adequate assistance without fear of imprisonment.

Not only is abortion increasingly difficult to obtain, but so is contraception. Out of all European countries, Poland ranked the lowest in terms of contraception access. For example, unlike in many European countries, Poland prohibits access to emergency birth control and hormonal birth control without a prescription. All of this shows the lack of women’s bodily autonomy, which can be interpreted as violating the human right to health and poses a threat to all women in Poland.

LGBTQ+ Rights

Those in the LGBTQ+ community face frequent discrimination and a lack of legal protections throughout Poland. Even since the adoption of the modern Polish Constitution in 1993, marriage is seen as proper only when between a man and a woman, meaning that gay couples receive no legal protections when married. Under PiS, steps were taken to further ensure traditional family norms, as seen with the party’s campaigning for a “family charter,” which sought to end marriage between gay couples and eliminate their ability to adopt children. This, along with a rising number of Polish cities that have decided to implement so-called “LGBT Ideology Free Zones,” has led to a climate that actively oppresses those within this community.

Throughout the European Union, Poland ranks the worst regarding LGBTQ+ rights, with only 15% of family, equality, and recognition rights being obtained. Unfortunately, activists cannot look to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) for assistance, as the document lacks protections on the basis of gender identity or sexuality. This omission of rights from the UDHR makes it nearly impossible for LGBTQ+ members to advocate for legal protections, having no doctrine to support their claims. Not only does this issue show that changes need to be made within Poland, but also the need to expand protections within the UDHR to provide a solid foundation for other advocacy groups worldwide.

Judicial Protections

Human rights concerns in Poland go beyond social issues; in fact, they bleed into the governmental structure itself. In 2019, a law was passed that undermined judicial independence, allowing the government to punish judges who question the legal changes made by PiS. This raised serious global concern, as this move would have allowed the executive branch to have control over the courts effectively, eliminating one of the greatest checks on executive and legislative power in Poland. This followed similar judicial changes that were ultimately made to serve the party. These changes included lowering the retirement age and appointing party loyalists to the Supreme Court. All of this led to the European Courts deeming these judicial revisions illegal in June 2023, making it an even more pressing issue leading into the latest election.

This infringement on the separation of powers causes a genuine and well-defined human rights violation, going against Article eight of the UDHR Article eight grants all humans the “right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals,” which is not available when the government has major authority over court cases.

The Recent Election

Given these issues and the increase in authoritarian policies, voters were aware that the 2023 election was extremely important, as seen in the voter turnout rate of about 73%, the highest rate since the fall of communism in 1989. Before explaining further, it’s important to note that Poland has a parliamentary government, meaning citizens’ votes are translated up to the legislature as a percentage of party representation. For example, if a party gained 30% of the total vote, they would receive that much representation in the legislature. This is necessary to know when understanding the outcome of the election.

Polish citizen votes in the election. Source: Yahoo Images

The Results

The results are as follows: the Law and Justice Party (rightwing) received a plurality of the votes, at 35.4%, Civic Coalition (center-left) received 30.7%, Third Way Coalition (centrist) at 12.4%, and Lewica (far-left) at 8.6%. While PiS holds a plurality, the remaining parties will likely form a center-left coalition, which would oust PiS from power and install a new government with a pro-democracy, pro-human rights agenda.

Likely Impact

Given the percentage of seats held by rightwing versus leftwing and centrist parties, progressive parties will likely assume power and work to steer Poland back to valuing democratic ideals and aligning more closely with the European Union. The three parties that are expected to form the new Polish government all promote democracy and pro-Europeanism, making it likely that action will be taken to support the oppressed groups mentioned above. It is also more probable that European Court rulings regarding the judicial branch will be respected and upheld.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the 2023 election results hold great promise in regard to human rights in Poland. As the Law and Justice Party (PiS) loses its grip on the government, a center-left coalition will likely form and create an overwhelming majority. Although these results won’t be officialized until December, many believe rights will be expanded under the new regime, and Poland can set a precedent for a return to liberal democracy within Central Europe.

Where is the Equity? How States Have Disproportionately Underfunded Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

by Jayla Carr

A group of logos of Historically Black College & University teams. Source: Yahoo Image

According to the United States Department of Education and Agriculture, sixteen states have underfunded their state’s land-grant, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), by more than $13 billion over the last thirty years. A land grant college or university is an institution designated by the state legislature to receive benefits under the Morrill Acts of 1890 and 1994. The act’s passing was to ensure that higher education would be accessible to all and not only wealthy individuals, being that before 1892, many of the United States institutes for Higher Education were privately funded and selective of who they allowed. It gave states the power to sell federal land to establish Public Institutions.

If HBCUs do not receive equitable funding, it can perpetuate inequities in educational outcomes and opportunities for underrepresented minority students. Understanding the history of HBCUs is essential to appreciate the significance of addressing underfunding. Many of these institutions were founded to address historical injustices, and chronic underfunding perpetuates these disparities, reinforcing the notion that Black students deserve fewer resources and opportunities than their white counterparts.

Two black students looking at a device in a classroom — Two students are looking at a device in a classroom. Source: Yahoo Images

The History of HBCUs

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) have a rich history of providing education to Black men and women in the United States. They emerged in the early 19th century, with institutions like Cheyney University of Pennsylvania in 1836 and Lincoln University in 1854 initially focusing on teacher training. Over time, these institutions broadened their curricula and became vital education centers for Black individuals, offering various academic programs.

During the Jim Crow era, which lasted from the late 19th century into the mid-20th century, racial segregation laws enforced strict separation of Black and White individuals in public facilities, including schools. Predominantly white institutions were often closed to Black students, and even if they were nominally open, they were often unwelcoming and discriminatory. HBCUs filled this void by providing Black students access to higher education when other options were limited or nonexistent. These institutions offered a safe and nurturing environment where Black individuals could pursue education and intellectual growth. However, these institutions have faced persistent challenges, including funding disparities that hinder their mission of providing equitable education. State funding policies that allocate resources to public higher education institutions are at the heart of these disparities.

A group of people wearing graduation gowns and caps standing in front of a building. — A group of people wearing graduation gowns and caps stands in front of a building. Source: Yahoo Images

Addressing the Disparities

In the letters sent to the governors of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, North Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. The Department of Education highlights the importance of HBCUs. The underinvestment of these institutions should be addressed, given that these institutions generate close to $15 billion and have considerable impacts on the predominantly black communities they serve.

The letter addressed to Governor Kay Ivey of Alabama, the Department of Education highlights the stark contrast between Alabama A&M University, the state’s first land-grant institution for African Americans, and Auburn University, the state’s first original land-grant institution, noting the differences in infrastructure and researching which Miguel Cardona, U.S Secretary of Education talks on saying that “Unacceptable funding inequities have forced many of our nation’s distinguished Historically Black Colleges and Universities to operate with inadequate resources and delay critical investments in everything from campus infrastructure to research and development to student support services.”

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, HBCUs have seen a massive enrollment increase despite a national decrease in college enrollments. During an interview with PBS News Hour, the President of Spelman College, an HBCU all-women’s college, Dr. Helene Gayle, attributed the increase in enrollment to an entire generation of young African Americans who have witnessed historic events. The inauguration of the first Black President of the United States, and the rise of movements such as Black Lives Matter and numerous instances of social injustice have motivated and encouraged young people to seek higher education in environments where they are surrounded by their community.

The increase in enrollment has caused some issues for many HBCUS, one being the need for more housing spaces to accommodate the influx of students. Tennessee State University has the most known case, with the university having to rent out five hotels for the 2022-2023 academic year. This has caused the Tennessee State Comptroller to come in and audit the University and their financial practices. Their report found that TSU had a “lack of planning, management, and sound decision-making.” TSU’s financial decisions play a part in the case. Still, one cannot deny that Tennessee underfunding Tennessee State University $2,147,784,704, the most of any other state, plays a role in their shortcomings. The University of Tennessee, the state’s original land grant-funded institution, has sixteen housing halls in Comparison to Tennessee State’s eight housing halls, including one that just opened in August of 2022.

A white building with a star and a blue graduation cap. Source: U.S Department of Education

Why HBCUs Matter

HBCUs have a rich history of contributing to research and innovation, often focusing on underrepresented areas in mainstream academia. Unfortunately, underfunding hampers their ability to invest in research projects, labs, and faculty development, affecting their capacity to compete for research grants and produce groundbreaking work. This lack of funding also hurts equity by limiting the contributions of Black professionals and academics in research, innovation, and industries like STEM.

Adequate funding is crucial for maintaining high educational standards, hiring qualified faculty, and offering up-to-date resources and facilities. When HBCUs receive less funding, it can lead to overcrowded classrooms, outdated technology, and limited course offerings. The disparity in educational quality can perpetuate inequities, particularly in the context of historically Black colleges and universities.

HBCUs have historically served as a pathway to higher education for Black students who were often excluded from predominantly white institutions due to racial segregation and discrimination. Inadequate funding can restrict their capacity to enroll and support students, limiting access to quality education. This impacts equity, making it harder for Black students, particularly those from low-income backgrounds, to pursue higher education and achieve social mobility.

Underfunded HBCUs may receive a different education and preparation for future opportunities than students at well-funded institutions. Therefore, providing adequate funding to HBCUs is essential for promoting equity and ensuring Black students have access to quality education and opportunities.

A group of people celebrating in front of a building. Source: Yahoo Image

Support HBCUs

Growing up, I was fortunate enough to be surrounded by the pride and tradition of HBCUs. Being a native of Birmingham, Alabama, I have had the pleasure of experiencing the biggest HBCU football game, The Magic City Classic, every year. The way the community comes together to support their teams, regardless of the weather, is truly a unique and unforgettable experience.

Funding HBCUs appropriately not only demonstrates a commitment to inclusivity and solidarity with marginalized communities. These institutions are essential to a more just and prosperous future for all, as they continue to play a vital role in American education and culture. By recognizing the pivotal role of state funding policies, we can work towards a more equitable future where HBCUs receive the resources they need to provide quality education and continue their legacy of empowerment and opportunity. Public policy decisions at the state and federal levels directly impact HBCUs funding, support, and overall well-being. Advocacy, engagement with policymakers, and developing equitable policies are essential to addressing funding disparities and promoting equity in higher education for HBCUs.

Here is the list of every federal government-recognized HBCU in the United States. If there is one close to you, I encourage you to support one in any way you can, whether going to a sporting event or donating.