MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, October 3 (IPS) – When Mali’s former Prime Minister Moussa Mara stood trial in Bamako’s cybercrime court on 29 September, charged with undermining state authority for expressing solidarity with political prisoners on social media, his prosecution represented far more than one person’s fate. It epitomised how thoroughly the military junta has dismantled Mali’s democratic foundations, five years after seizing power with promises of swift reform.
Just a week before Mara’s trial, Mali joined fellow military-run states Burkina Faso and Niger in announcing immediate withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC). Although the withdrawal won’t take effect for a year and the ICC retains jurisdiction over past crimes, the message was unmistakable: Mali’s military rulers intend to operate beyond international legal constraints.
This follows a pattern of escalating repression, including arrests of senior generals and civilians over alleged conspiracy in August, coming months after sweeping decrees outlawed political parties and dissolved all organised opposition. Rather than preparing for the democratic handover initially promised for 2022 and repeatedly postponed, the junta is methodically shutting down what remains of Mali’s civic space.
A transition derailed
When General Assimi Goïta first seized power in August 2020 following mass protests over corruption and insecurity, he pledged to oversee a quick return to civilian rule. But less than a year later, he staged a second coup to sideline transitional civilian leaders. In 2023, the junta organised a constitutional referendum, claiming it would pave the way to democracy. The new constitution, supposedly approved by 97 per cent of voters, provided for significantly strengthened presidential powers while conveniently granting amnesty to coup participants. Deadlines for elections kept slipping, and they’re now effectively off the table until at least 2030.
A national consultation held in April, boycotted by virtually all major political parties, recommended appointing Goïta as president for a renewable five-year term until 2030, obviously contradicting any pledges to restore multi-party democracy.
An all-out assault on political parties ensued. Presidential decrees in May suspended all parties, revoked the 2005 Charter of Political Parties that provided the legal framework for political competition and dissolved close to 300 parties, forbidding all meetings or activities under threat of prosecution. Courts predictably rejected appeals, having become beholden to the executive under the 2023 constitutional changes that gave Goïta absolute control over Supreme Court appointments. The regime announced a new law on political parties to sharply restrict their number and impose stricter formation requirements, making clear it wants a tightly managed political landscape stripped of genuine pluralism.
Crushing civic freedoms
The assault on civic space extends beyond political parties. The junta has suspended civil society groups receiving foreign funding, imposed stringent regulatory controls and introduced draft legislation aimed at taxing civil society organisations. Independent media face systematic silencing through licence suspensions and revocations, astronomic increases in licence fees and weaponised cybercrime laws targeting journalists with vague charges such as undermining state credibility and spreading false information. Religious figures, opposition leaders and civil society activists have faced arrests, enforced disappearances and show trials.
The crackdown sparked the first major public resistance to military rule since 2020, with thousands protesting in Bamako in early May against the party ban and extension of Goïta’s mandate, only to be dispersed with teargas. Planned follow-up protests were cancelled after organisers received warnings of violent retaliation. The regime has made clear it won’t tolerate peaceful dissent.
What lies ahead
Five years after seizing power, Mali keeps taking the opposite path to democracy. The initial coup enjoyed some popular support, fuelled by anger at corruption and the civilian government’s failure to address jihadist insurgencies. But no improvements have come. Jihadist groups are still killing thousands every year, while the Malian army and its new Russian mercenary allies, following the departure of French and allied forces, routinely commit atrocities against civilians. Meanwhile the freedoms that would allow people to voice grievances and demand accountability have been systematically stripped away.
Mali’s trajectory matters beyond its borders. It was the first in a series of Central and West African countries to fall under military rule in recent years and is now spearheading a regional pushback against global democracy and human rights standards. The international community has responded with condemnations from UN human rights experts and documentation from civil society groups, but these statements carry little weight. Economic Community of West African States sanctions lost their leverage when Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger withdrew to form the rival Alliance of Sahel States, creating a bloc of authoritarian military regimes that coordinate to suppress dissent across borders, backed by stronger ties to Russia.
What began as a supposed corrective to civilian misrule has hardened into outright authoritarianism dressed in the language of national security and public order. The junta has eliminated any domestic institution that might constrain its power and is now casting aside even international accountability mechanisms.
In this bleak context, Malian civil society activists, journalists and opposition figures continue speaking out at tremendous personal risk. Their courage demands more than statements of condemnation. It calls for tangible support in the form of emergency funding, secure communication channels, legal assistance, temporary refuge and sustained diplomatic pressure. The international community’s commitment to human rights and democratic values, in Mali and across Central and West Africa, must translate into meaningful solidarity with those risking everything to defend them.
Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Head of Research and Analysis, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.
For interviews or more information, please contact [email protected]
© Inter Press Service (20251003093335) — All Rights Reserved. Original source: Inter Press Service
the Shifting Global Landscape: 2020-2025
The past five years (2020-2025) have witnessed a concerning global trend: a resurgence of authoritarian tendencies. While democratic institutions haven’t collapsed wholesale, a steady erosion of democratic norms, coupled with the rise of populist and nationalist movements, has created a fertile ground for authoritarian practices. This isn’t simply a return to traditional dictatorship; itS a more nuanced and often insidious form of control, leveraging technology, exploiting societal anxieties, and often masking itself within the framework of existing political systems. Key terms driving this shift include political polarization, democratic backsliding, illiberal democracy, and nationalism.
Contemporary authoritarianism differs significantly from the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. It’s characterized by:
* Erosion of Checks and Balances: Weakening of self-reliant judiciaries, curtailing the power of legislatures, and concentrating power in the executive branch.
* Suppression of Dissent: Restrictions on freedom of speech, assembly, and the press, frequently enough justified by national security concerns.This includes increased surveillance and censorship.
* Control of Information: Manipulation of media narratives, spread of disinformation, and control over online platforms.
* Weaponization of Law: Using legal systems to target political opponents and suppress dissent.
* Cult of Personality: Promoting a strong leader figure and fostering unquestioning loyalty.
A critical concept to understand is “responsive authoritarianism,” as highlighted in recent analyses. This describes a system where rulers respond to the perceived needs of the population – offering economic benefits or addressing grievances – to legitimize their authoritarian control. This is not benevolence, but a calculated strategy to maintain power.
Regional Hotspots and Case Studies
Several regions have experienced a marked increase in authoritarian practices:
* Eastern Europe: countries like Hungary and Poland have seen democratic institutions weakened through judicial reforms and media control. Concerns over rule of law and human rights are paramount.
* Asia: The crackdown on dissent in Hong Kong, the increasing authoritarianism in the Philippines, and the continued suppression of freedoms in countries like Vietnam demonstrate a worrying trend.
* Africa: Several African nations have witnessed coups or attempts to subvert democratic processes,often fueled by economic instability and political corruption.
* Latin America: Political polarization and economic hardship have contributed to the rise of populist leaders with authoritarian tendencies in countries like Venezuela and, increasingly, in parts of Central america.
* Western Democracies: Even established democracies haven’t been immune. The rise of populist movements in the US and Europe, coupled with concerns about election integrity and the spread of disinformation, represent a subtle but meaningful challenge to democratic norms.
Case Study: Myanmar (2021 Coup) – The military coup in Myanmar in February 2021 serves as a stark example of a blatant seizure of power, resulting in widespread human rights abuses and a brutal crackdown on pro-democracy protests. this event underscores the fragility of democratic transitions and the willingness of authoritarian regimes to use force to maintain control.
Technology plays a dual role in the rise of authoritarianism. While it can empower citizens and facilitate democratic participation, it also provides powerful tools for surveillance, censorship, and manipulation.
* Surveillance Technologies: Facial recognition, data mining, and social media monitoring allow governments to track and control citizens.
* Censorship and Internet Control: Blocking access to information, filtering content, and shutting down social media platforms are common tactics.
* Disinformation Campaigns: The spread of fake news and propaganda through social media can manipulate public opinion and undermine trust in democratic institutions.
* Cyberattacks: Targeting critical infrastructure and interfering in elections are increasingly common forms of authoritarian aggression.
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in surveillance and censorship is a especially concerning growth, as it allows for automated and large-scale control of information and populations.
Economic factors significantly contribute to the rise and resilience of authoritarian regimes.
* Economic Inequality: High levels of economic inequality can fuel social unrest and create a sense of grievance that authoritarian leaders can exploit.
* Corruption: Widespread corruption undermines trust in government and creates opportunities for authoritarian leaders to consolidate power.
* Resource Dependence: Countries heavily reliant on natural resources are often more vulnerable to authoritarianism, as control over these resources can be used to fund repression
