Typically, a strong civil society and an active fight against corruption are considered crucial for the development and longevity of a democratic regime. In this article, I draw on the case of wartime Ukraine to show that, when institutional guardrails are weakened by an external crisis, the combination of the two may contribute to an illiberal turn in national politics. Based on an analysis of in-depth interviews with governmental and nongovernmental corruption fighters, the social media activity of Ukraine experts, and three major Ukrainian news outlets, I show that because of disproportionate Western investment in Ukrainian anti-corruption NGOs, local contestation over anti-corruptionism has grown increasingly polarizing in recent years. Specifically, I use the data to identify several indications that anti-corruption contestation has become dangerous for Ukraine’s democracy. These include upshifting, scaling, boomeranging, and convergence in the political contestation of where corruption is located and how to properly fight it. The article concludes with a discussion of how these processes have led to a drop in the institutional and generalized trust of ordinary Ukrainians, marginalization of moderate political voices, governmental attacks on civil liberties, and a rise in negative partisanship.

The rapid growth of economic offences such as money laundering, tax evasion, corporate fraud, and financial misconduct has expanded the reliance on survey and seizure powers as primary investigative tools in India. While these mechanisms enable authorities to detect concealed assets, preserve evidence, and disrupt complex financial crimes, they simultaneously raise serious constitutional concerns relating to privacy, property, due process, and proportionality. This paper critically examines the statutory and constitutional framework governing search, survey, and seizure under key Indian laws including the Income Tax Act, PMLA, FEMA, Companies Act, and CrPC. It analyses judicial interpretations surrounding “reason to believe,” procedural safeguards, evidentiary standards, and protection against arbitrary state action. Special focus is placed on digital search and seizure, cross-border data access, and the challenges posed by technological advancements. Through comparative insights from the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union, the study highlights global best practices balancing enforcement efficiency with civil liberties. The paper concludes by proposing reforms aimed at strengthening transparency, judicial oversight, digital evidence protocols, and proportionality standards to ensure that economic crime investigations remain effective while constitutionally compliant.

The Constitution of India serves as the primary legal framework for the protection of human rights in India, deeply influenced by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).It translates international human rights ideals into enforceable domestic law through a unique structure that balances individual liberties with social welfare. Part III of the Constitution enshrines Fundamental Rights, which are justiciable civil and political liberties(such as equality, freedom of speech, and the right to life)that protect citizens against state excesses. Complementing these are the Directive Principles of State Policy(Part IV),which, while non-justiciable, provide a moral and political mandate for the state to achieve socio-economic justice. Through proactive judicial activism, the Indian Supreme Court has further expanded these rights- most notably under Article 21- to include the right to privacy, education, and a clean environment. Ultimately, the Constitution acts as a "Social Document" designed to preserve human dignity and foster a just society through robust legal and institutional safeguards like the National Human Rights Commission(NHRC).

By International Women’s Day 1975, a narrative was well in place that women’s liberation started in Australia in 1970. This article explores a little-recognised precursor: humanism and the commitment to civil liberties in the abortion law reform movement. It does this by looking at three women abortion law reform campaigners active in the 1960s, before Women’s Liberation reached Australia. The three women are: Beryl Henderson (b. 1897), who was a member of the founding executive committee of the British Abortion Law Reform Association when it was formed in 1936 and in 1968 began the Canberra branch of the Abortion Law Reform Association; Julia Freebury (b. 1923), an indefatigable worker for abortion law reform in New South Wales; and Beatrice Faust (b. 1939), founder of the Women’s Electoral Lobby, who in 1966 set up a sub-committee on abortion law reform in the recently formed Victorian Council of Civil Liberties.

ABSTRACT While the corrosive effect of affective polarization on democratic norms is a major concern, existing research has largely overlooked its dynamics outside established democracies. This study addresses this gap by examining Turkey, a paradigmatic, highly polarized hybrid regime where democratic norms are actively contested. Drawing on original, nationally representative survey data from spring 2024, we investigate how affective polarization shapes citizens’ willingness to endorse concrete violations of electoral fairness and civil liberties, moving beyond abstract measures of democratic support. We find that higher levels of affective polarization are strongly associated with greater endorsement of undemocratic practices motivated by both out-party discrimination and in-party favouritism, though the association is somewhat stronger for the latter. This relationship holds among both government and opposition supporters, challenging the assumption that tolerance for such practices is unique to incumbent partisans. Contrary to recent evidence from Western democracies, we find no curvilinear relationship: affective polarization in Turkey consistently predicts greater tolerance of democratic violations. By analysing a case of sustained democratic backsliding, we extend debates on affective polarization beyond consolidated democracies, showing how it can create a permissive environment for illiberal practices and undermine citizen commitment to democratic norms.

ABSTRACT This research, which covers 100 countries representing 88.5% of the world's population, reveals a nuanced relationship between trust and democracy, employing various methods such as instrumental variables, panel data fixed effects analysis, and alternative measures of democracy. Personal trust and general social trust are associated with increased democracy, a more liberal political culture, and better governance. In contrast, institutional trust is associated with reduced democracy, lower political engagement, decreased government effectiveness, and diminished concern for civil liberties. This effect is correlated with poverty, women's economic participation, and religious diversity. Underprivileged groups, like poor and women with limited economic roles, mitigate the negative association of institutional trust on democracy. Additionally, religious diversity increases the negative association of institutional trust and democracy. Despite democratic costs, constituents likely maintain higher institutional trust driven by rational interests, prompting the need for vigilant governance and checks on power. The implications challenge traditional policy prescriptions that assume governments inherently act to promote democracy, highlighting that high institutional trust can enable governments to pursue self‐interested agendas that may erode democratic norms. The findings emphasize the need for reforms focused on strengthening independent oversight bodies, empowering civil society, protecting press freedom, and fostering external constraints on executive power. Ultimately, durable democratic governance depends not on governmental goodwill but on vigilant institutions and active public participation that reshape political incentives toward transparency and accountability.

ABSTRACT Digital technologies are transforming democratic life in conflicting ways. This article bridges two perspectives to unpack these tensions. First, we present an original survey of software developers in Silicon Valley, interrogating how coders’ worldviews, ethics, and workplace cultures shape the democratic potential and social impact of the technologies they build. Results indicate that while most developers recognize the power of their products to influence civil liberties and political discourse, they often face ethical dilemmas and top-down pressures that can lead to design choices undermining democratic ideals. Second, we critically investigate these findings in the context of an emerging ‘new digital divide’, not of internet access but of information quality. We interrogate the survey findings in the context of the ‘slop economy’, in which billions of users unable to pay for high-quality content experience an internet dominated by low-quality, AI-generated ad-driven content. We find a reinforcing cycle between tech creator beliefs and the digital ecosystems they spawn. We discuss implications for democratic governance, arguing for more ethically informed design and policy interventions to help bridge the digital divide to ensure that technological innovation supports rather than subverts democratic values in the next chapter of the digital age.

The phenomenon of democratic backsliding and the resurgence of authoritarianism has become a major concern in Southeast Asia, including in Indonesia and Thailand. This study aims to analyze how transnational civil society movements, particularly the Milk Tea Alliance (MTA), respond to and resist authoritarianism in these two countries. Using the theory of Transnational Advocacy Networks (TANs) by Keck and Sikkink, this study identifies the strategies of information politics, symbolic politics, leverage politics, and accountability politics employed by the MTA. The research adopts a qualitative-descriptive approach with literature study as the main method. The findings indicate that the MTA has succeeded in building cross-national solidarity that strengthens local advocacy, despite facing challenges such as state repression and nationalist resistance. These findings contribute to the understanding of the role of global civil networks in supporting democratization and civil liberties amidst the current wave of authoritarianism.

This paper examines the crisis of dissent in India through a dual framework. The first phase revisits the foundational constitutional deliberations (1946–1950) and early judicial decisions that culminated in the First Constitutional Amendment, which expanded the scope of permissible restrictions on free speech and expression under Article 19. The second phase investigates contemporary expansions, judicial interpretations, regulatory frameworks, and executive measures that have constrained critical liberties. Particular attention is paid to the regulation of digital governance regimes, the labelling of secular ideologies as “anti-national,” and the disproportionate suppression of dissenting voices. The study highlights how ultra-nationalist narratives, institutional dependence, and global security-driven legislative paradigms have intersected to institutionalize limitations on speech and political expression. Crucially, it underscores the significance of judicial dissent as a safeguard against majoritarian excesses and as an instrument for preserving constitutional values. By reconstructing dissent—historically valorised as a civic principle—into a subversive act, the state has fostered an atmosphere of deterrence inimical to constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties. Judicial dissent, in this context, emerges as a vital corrective voice that sustains the spirit of democracy and reaffirms the role of the judiciary as the guardian of fundamental rights.

ABSTRACT This paper examines the institutionalisation of Drug Detection Dogs (DDDs) at British music festivals, highlighting a paradox at the heart of contemporary festival security practices. While festivals have increasingly embraced harm reduction strategies in response to drug-related deaths, they have simultaneously intensified law enforcement measures at entry points. DDDs are widely deployed despite research demonstrating their ineffectiveness in deterring drug use and their potential to increase drug-related harm. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork at eight festivals and eleven interviews with police, security personnel, and event managers, this study investigates how DDDs persist as a security measure despite their questionable utility. Using a novel theoretical framework that combines Foucauldian disciplinary power with symbolic policy theory, the paper conceptualises DDDs through a symbolic-disciplinary nexus. It argues that DDDs serve dual functions: at the micro-level, they shape attendee behaviour through visible displays of authority and moral messaging; at the macro-organisational level, they act as symbolic performances of security competence aimed at satisfying external stakeholders such as police and licensing authorities. This dual role contributes to a self-reinforcing security ratchet, where the perceived legitimacy and institutional value of DDDs outweigh their practical effectiveness. The paper concludes by discussing the broader implications of symbolic-disciplinary security practices and offers policy recommendations for moving beyond performative control measures. It advocates for a shift toward evidence-based harm reduction approaches that prioritise public health and civil liberties over symbolic displays of control.

This study presents a comparative analysis of whistleblower protection mechanisms in Ghana and Turkey, providing important insights into the practical applications and challenges of such protections in different legal and cultural contexts. The main objective is to understand how different legal, institutional, and cultural factors influence the practical effectiveness of whistleblower protection in these two countries. Employing a qualitative comparative methodology, the study analyzes primary legal documents, academic literature, case studies, and expert consultations to evaluate how effective each country is in protecting whistleblowers. The study analyzes Ghana’s comprehensive Whistleblower Act of 2006 with Turkey’s fragmented legal framework, revealing significant differences in their legislative approaches. It examines the historical evolution of democratic institutions and civil liberties in both countries, emphasizing how these trajectories have influenced current approaches to protecting whistleblowers. The study identifies the role of institutional support, cultural impediments, and implementation challenges that hinder the practical effectiveness of existing protections. Key findings highlight the importance of comprehensive legislation, dedicated institutional support, and efforts to address cultural barriers for effective whistleblower protection. The study also emphasizes the growing influence of international standards and the need to adapt protection mechanisms to technological advancements.

Abstract: The article reassesses early-2000s optimism about "Muslim democracy," arguing that Islamist participation and pragmatism have not produced stable democratization. Drawing on the cases of Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Pakistan, and others, the authors show that without a genuine normative commitment to pluralism, civil liberties, and institutional checks, Islamist parties often instrumentalize elections and slide into authoritarian or majoritarian rule. Structural legacies of secular authoritarianism, regional counterrevolution (notably Gulf monarchies), inconsistent Western "linkage and leverage," and a global wave of populist authoritarianism further constrain democratization. The authors conclude that durable democracy in Muslim-majority states requires stronger institutions, engaged civil society, and sustained international support.

This article examines the impact of Constitutional Court Decision No. 105/PUU-XXII/2024, which restricted criminal defamation claims by institutions under the Electronic Information and Transaction Law. The ruling asserts that only individual persons—not state bodies, corporations, professions, or institutional entities—may file criminal defamation reports. Employing a normative legal method with statutory and constitutional approaches, the study analyses the decision’s implications for public oversight over governmental power, democratic deliberation, and institutional accountability. This paper argues that the decision strengthens citizens’ freedom of expression and the informal mechanism of checks and balances, while also reducing the potential misuse of criminal defamation provisions to silence criticism. However, the effectiveness of the ruling depends on judicial interpretation, harmonisation with other legal frameworks, and the institutional internalisation of democratic norms. The research concludes that although the decision contributes to the protection of civil liberties, a more systematic enforcement strategy, judicial guidelines, and legal reform are required to prevent retaliatory litigation through non-criminal avenues. Furthermore, this study contributes to constitutional scholarship by positioning the decision as a landmark shift from state-centred reputational protection towards citizen-centred constitutional guarantees. It highlights the need for a coherent legal architecture that safeguards critical expression as an essential component of democratic control over power. By mapping doctrinal consequences and practical enforcement gaps, this article offers a framework for evaluating future court rulings and policy reforms related to defamation, digital rights, and state accountability in Indonesia. Thus, the decision not only redefines the boundaries of criminal defamation but also provides momentum for strengthening constitutional democracy through legal culture transformation, legislative harmonisation, and strategic judicial oversight.

Objectives This study aims to analyze the objectives of Project 2025, an initiative led by the Heritage Foundation and over 100 conservative organizations, proposing transformative policies for a potential second Trump administration. It focuses on the project’s goals, the historical and current role of the Heritage Foundation, and its implications for American democracy. A qualitative analysis was employed, involving a review of literature, project documents, and public statements by key stakeholders to understand the initiative’s intentions and consequences. Material and methods Project 2025 seeks to strengthen executive authority, replace career civil servants with ideological loyalists, deregulate key sectors, and implement conservative reforms in education, immigration, social policy, and national security. It also advocates for reduced U.S. involvement in global institutions and a more assertive stance toward adversaries like China. Findings reveal significant controversy: supporters view it as a means to curb bureaucratic overreach and align governance with voter priorities, while critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union, warn of threats to democratic checks and balances, civil liberties, and marginalized communities. Results The study highlights the growing influence of think tanks in polarized policymaking and the evolving role of the Heritage Foundation. If implemented, Project 2025 could fundamentally reshape U.S. governance, raising critical questions about democratic resilience and ideological polarization. Conclusions These findings underscore the project's potential impact on the stability of democratic institutions and the need for further debate on balancing reform with the protection of democratic principles.

ABSTRACT It is commonly believed that women experience lower relative status in polygynous societies, whereas it is mathematically the case that the average woman benefits materially (and the average man suffers reproductively) from the polygynous institution of marriage. In 1999, Kanazawa and Still hypothesized that the apparent negative correlation between polygyny and women's status was spurious and can be explained by “Western egalitarianism,” which simultaneously decreases inequality among men and thereby polygyny (according to the female choice theory of marriage institution) and decreases inequality between the sexes, thereby elevating women's status. However, their hypothesis was never empirically tested. I put Kanazawa and Still's hypothesis to an empirical test. Analyses of three widely varied international measures of gender inequality show that polygyny was not associated with women's relative status in society net of Western egalitarianism. Robustness checks confirm that the results are not unique to a specific measure of Western egalitarianism. The international data leave very little doubt that women experience lower relative status in polygynous societies, not because they are polygynous, but because they are inegalitarian and citizens (both women and men) lack civil liberties.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in predictive policing and profiling represents a transformative shift in law enforcement strategies, enabling data-driven forecasts of criminal activities through algorithms analyzing vast datasets on demographics, historical crimes and social behaviors. This research article conducts a comprehensive legal analysis of these practices, examining their implications under constitutional frameworks, international human rights standards and data protection laws such as the GDPR and U.S. Fourth Amendment protections. Key concerns include algorithmic bias, which disproportionately impacts marginalized communities, leading to discriminatory profiling and perpetuating systemic inequalities. The study evaluates case studies from implementations in cities like Chicago and London, highlighting successes in resource allocation and crime reduction alongside risks of privacy erosion, false positives and due process violations. It argues for robust regulatory oversight, including transparency mandates, bias audits and ethical guidelines to mitigate harms while harnessing AI's potential for public safety. Ultimately, the analysis underscores the need for a balanced approach that prioritizes civil liberties in the era of algorithmic governance, proposing reforms to ensure equitable and accountable use of predictive technologies.

The global response to the COVID-19 pandemic was characterized by a patchwork of government policies in countries around the world, many of which limited civil liberties in unprecedented ways. Here, our objective was to analyze the scope and spatio-temporal patterns of workplace vaccination mandates. Using daily policy data from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker for 2021–2022, we developed a simple mandate intensity index representing the number of affected employment sectors and the duration of each mandate by country. These metrics suggest a largely inconsistent pandemic response. We found that less than one-third of the 185 countries included in the dataset implemented such “no jab, no job” policies. Even among groups of culturally and politically aligned countries, such as the core Anglosphere, policies varied greatly: between one (United Kingdom) and 10 (Australia) out of 12 employment sectors had vaccination mandates. The most frequently and longest mandated sectors included government officials and healthcare workers, two broad groups with different risk profiles. We discuss these discrepancies from a critical perspective, considering the limited evidence for the mandates’ effectiveness along with their potential to cause harmful outcomes, and recommend careful cost–benefit analyses in the future.

Russia has increasingly focused on developing comprehensive digital policies aimed at establishing “digital sovereignty” which seeks to reduce dependence on foreign technologies, internet infrastructure, and multinational platforms. These policies integrate internet governance, media regulation, cybersecurity, and content monitoring under the overarching concept of “information security”. The state’s digital strategy is historically rooted in Cold War-era concerns, including military-industrial competition, national identity preservation, and control over information flows. In recent years, Russia’s digital policies have intensified in response to domestic economic stagnation, political crises, and social movements that challenge the legitimacy of the regime. This study employs a mixed-methods approach combining the analysis of legal documents, policy papers, official statements, international indices, and datasets on internet censorship, online prosecutions, and digital surveillance. It examines how Russia’s digital sovereignty policies – including the Sovereign Internet Law, Yarovaya amendments, VPN restrictions, and mandatory data localization – impact freedom of speech, privacy, and access to information. The research demonstrates that while these measures are framed as necessary for national security, they enable broad censorship, state surveillance, and the suppression of civil liberties. Furthermore, Russia’s model reflects a form of “digital authoritarianism” which relies on both legal frameworks and technical measures to control the internet, regulate content, and influence public opinion. The findings underscore that Russia’s prioritization of regime stability over citizens’ rights has significant implications for freedom of expression, human rights, and global internet governance, highlighting a growing tension between national security imperatives and digital freedoms.

The rapid advancement of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) has significantly affected global security, offering both transformative opportunities and new challenges. On the positive side, AI and ICT enhance surveillance, threat detection, and cybersecurity, enabling proactive responses to cyberattacks, terrorism, and natural disasters. They also improve military capabilities, crisis management, and disaster response, saving lives and optimising resources. However, these technologies also introduce risks, including the weaponisation of AI, cybersecurity threats, privacy concerns, disinformation campaigns, and widening global inequalities. Malicious actors exploit AI for sophisticated cyberattacks and autonomous weapons, while surveillance technologies raise ethical and civil liberty issues. To address these challenges, global cooperation is essential to establish ethical standards, strengthen cybersecurity, and promote digital literacy. By balancing innovation with regulation, the global community can harness the benefits of ICT and AI while mitigating their risks, ensuring a safer and more secure future.

ABSTRACT This study seeks to understand why most Southeastern European states struggle to achieve a robust rule of law, despite external incentives provided by the EU and the implementation of domestic reforms. By analysing the impact of broader, non-judiciary-related elements, it assesses how domestic factors influence the rule of law in eight Southeastern European states between 1995 and 2023. The analysis employs two-way fixed effects multiple regressions and a dynamic model (Arellano-Bond) with lagged variables, using two dependent variables to compare findings against different approaches to the rule of law. Under a narrow interpretation (V-Dem), civil liberties have a significant positive effect. However, under a broader interpretation (World Bank), the GDP variable holds the most significant influence. Moreover, the lagged dependent variable itself emerges as a significant coefficient highlighting the interplay between path dependency, EU conditionality, and domestic reform dynamics in shaping the evolution of rule of law in Southeastern Europe.