Feed aggregator

International donors commit substantial resources to GovTech projects (the application of information and communication technologies to government functions). World Bank GovTech investments alone have exceeded $118 billion over the last three decades. Donor strategy documents consistently frame digital transformation not only as a vehicle for improved effectiveness but also for strengthening democracy.
Autocrats are equally invested in these tools. Globally, at least 88 authoritarian regimes currently operate GovTech projects, and electoral autocracies receive the largest share of GovTech aid (48.6 per cent of commitments). Beyond well-known surveillance applications, autocracies deploy GovTech for service delivery, grievance redress and even citizen engagement. These platforms are deployed to project an image of responsiveness and legitimacy. Our experimental evidence from Turkey shows how efficiency-enhancing GovTech tools, when paired with sophisticated regime communication, can durably entrench autocratic rule. We designed a survey experiment focused on CIMER, Turkey’s widely used citizen petition platform, to examine how citizens respond to the government propaganda surrounding it. The results show that the government’s framing of CIMER as an effective tool that “gets things done” significantly increased trust in authoritarian institutions, even among regime opponents. The effect extended beyond attitudes to behaviour: Asked to allocate a hypothetical donation of money among state institutions, independent non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or themselves, anti-government respondents exposed to messages on the platform were significantly more likely to give the money to state institutions. Our recommendations are as follows:
• Donors must take the second-order effects of GovTech initiatives seriously and develop mechanisms to carefully evaluate the risks of unintended consequences. In many cases, support for GovTech projects is overly optimistic regarding their effects on political openness. Adopting a more context-sensitive and realistic approach demands detailed political economy assessments before supporting GovTech projects and developing monitoring metrics that capture potential regime-legitimation effects.
• Donors need to build stronger safety guardrails into these projects. Depending on the political economy assessments, such measures could include the institutional involvement of international organisations or, if feasible, local NGOs (as conditionality) in platform oversight, mandatory independent audits and open data standards by design, among others.
• Finally, donors need to consider actively participating in public communication on these platforms, with visible donor branding, to counter government-controlled propaganda, claim credit for service delivery and strengthen trust in donor countries and organisations.

International donors commit substantial resources to GovTech projects (the application of information and communication technologies to government functions). World Bank GovTech investments alone have exceeded $118 billion over the last three decades. Donor strategy documents consistently frame digital transformation not only as a vehicle for improved effectiveness but also for strengthening democracy.
Autocrats are equally invested in these tools. Globally, at least 88 authoritarian regimes currently operate GovTech projects, and electoral autocracies receive the largest share of GovTech aid (48.6 per cent of commitments). Beyond well-known surveillance applications, autocracies deploy GovTech for service delivery, grievance redress and even citizen engagement. These platforms are deployed to project an image of responsiveness and legitimacy. Our experimental evidence from Turkey shows how efficiency-enhancing GovTech tools, when paired with sophisticated regime communication, can durably entrench autocratic rule. We designed a survey experiment focused on CIMER, Turkey’s widely used citizen petition platform, to examine how citizens respond to the government propaganda surrounding it. The results show that the government’s framing of CIMER as an effective tool that “gets things done” significantly increased trust in authoritarian institutions, even among regime opponents. The effect extended beyond attitudes to behaviour: Asked to allocate a hypothetical donation of money among state institutions, independent non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or themselves, anti-government respondents exposed to messages on the platform were significantly more likely to give the money to state institutions. Our recommendations are as follows:
• Donors must take the second-order effects of GovTech initiatives seriously and develop mechanisms to carefully evaluate the risks of unintended consequences. In many cases, support for GovTech projects is overly optimistic regarding their effects on political openness. Adopting a more context-sensitive and realistic approach demands detailed political economy assessments before supporting GovTech projects and developing monitoring metrics that capture potential regime-legitimation effects.
• Donors need to build stronger safety guardrails into these projects. Depending on the political economy assessments, such measures could include the institutional involvement of international organisations or, if feasible, local NGOs (as conditionality) in platform oversight, mandatory independent audits and open data standards by design, among others.
• Finally, donors need to consider actively participating in public communication on these platforms, with visible donor branding, to counter government-controlled propaganda, claim credit for service delivery and strengthen trust in donor countries and organisations.

The same networks involved in illegal fishing are becoming logistical arteries for transnational drug trafficking. It’s a growing challenge for Indo-Pacific security.

À télécharger

• Read (PDF)

The Trump regime has told us again and again precisely what they are.

During the first Trump term and even into the second, commentators would frequently pose the rhetorical question of asking how some Trump outrage would have been perceived if it had been done by Barack Obama. The point of this exercise was to note how Trump continues to get away with pretty much everything and has never been held to the same standards as Obama. A subtext of that comparison was to suggest that Trump was a president in some way similar to Obama, and to downplay the regime change that Trump began in his first term and has accelerated during his second term.

L’article Christian Nationalist Rally Led By A Christian Nationalist Regime est apparu en premier sur IRIS.

Taiwan's stateless and undocumented population, numbering in the tens of thousands, has no access to basic rights, including healthcare, legal residency, and in some cases, education.

In the face of the Chinese irredentist claims over Arunachal, New Delhi has attempted to transform a geopolitically sensitive frontier into a living, breathing part of the Indian nation.

Over 90,000 ethnic Koreans were enticed to leave Japan by North Korean propaganda in the early 1960s. Most remain trapped in North Korea.

L'ancien Premier ministre et secrétaire général du parti Renaissance Gabriel Attal a officialisé vendredi sa candidature à l'élection présidentielle de 2027 pour faire de la France "le pays de l'avenir", lors d'un déplacement à Mur-de-Barrez, petite commune de l'Aveyron.

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Written by Györgyi Mácsai

Rising EU imports of goods from Mexico compensated for a slight decrease in exports, and reversed the trend of a growing trade surplus, which still amounts to €19.1 billion in favour of the EU. Mexico ranks as the EU’s 11th most important trade partner, with a share of 1.7 % of total EU trade with the world, while the EU ranks third on the list of Mexico’s main trade partners, with a share of 6.7 %, slightly lower than in 2024.

Read this ‘at a glance’ note on ‘EU-Mexico trade and investment relations‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Iliman Ndiaye insists Senegal are African champions in "many people's eyes" despite a legal wrangle over the ultimate destination of the 2025 Afcon title.

Delegations

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

A la veille de la finale de la Coupe de France dans laquelle #Nice doit affronter #Lens, de violents affrontements impliquant des supporters de l'#OGCNice ont éclaté dans l'est de la capitale. Le maire de #Paris a dénoncé les agissements de "groupuscules d'extrême-droite."

Policy coherence is widely regarded as essential for achieving sustainable development, climate targets, and reducing inequality, as reflected in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Recent scholarship has moved beyond technocratic approaches, drawing on comparative politics, particularly the “3 I's” of ideas, interests, and institutions, to highlight the inherently political nature of coherence. Yet even these studies often treat coherence as binary, easily observable, and intrinsically beneficial. Building on a coherence literature focused on discourses and frames, this paper challenges these assumptions by examining how policy (in)coherence is constructed and contested. Focusing on policy implementation in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany's coal heartland, we analyse two cases before and during the 2022 energy crisis triggered by the war in Ukraine: the commissioning of the Datteln IV hard coal plant in 2020, and the clearance of the village of Lützerath for mining in 2023. Drawing on 28 semi-structured interviews with German energy, climate, and environmental experts, alongside policy and media analysis, we find that (in)coherence is greatly constructed and contested under shifting political and economic pressures, instrumentalised and legitimisatised by different actors to advance their interests, and profoundly shaped by temporal dynamics. Given recent findings that challenge the 2030 Agenda's assumption that policy coherence reduces inequalities, we also explore how (in)coherence is perceived to shape multidimensional inequality in the Energiewende more broadly. Here, we find that (in)coherence is most prominently perceived to cause delays in climate mitigation, disproportionately affecting youth, low-income households, migrants, and activists. In this context, (in)coherence is not merely technical, political nor constructed, but fundamentally a matter of justice, shifting the analytical focus from whether policies and their implementation are coherent to how, and for whom, coherence matters.

Policy coherence is widely regarded as essential for achieving sustainable development, climate targets, and reducing inequality, as reflected in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Recent scholarship has moved beyond technocratic approaches, drawing on comparative politics, particularly the “3 I's” of ideas, interests, and institutions, to highlight the inherently political nature of coherence. Yet even these studies often treat coherence as binary, easily observable, and intrinsically beneficial. Building on a coherence literature focused on discourses and frames, this paper challenges these assumptions by examining how policy (in)coherence is constructed and contested. Focusing on policy implementation in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany's coal heartland, we analyse two cases before and during the 2022 energy crisis triggered by the war in Ukraine: the commissioning of the Datteln IV hard coal plant in 2020, and the clearance of the village of Lützerath for mining in 2023. Drawing on 28 semi-structured interviews with German energy, climate, and environmental experts, alongside policy and media analysis, we find that (in)coherence is greatly constructed and contested under shifting political and economic pressures, instrumentalised and legitimisatised by different actors to advance their interests, and profoundly shaped by temporal dynamics. Given recent findings that challenge the 2030 Agenda's assumption that policy coherence reduces inequalities, we also explore how (in)coherence is perceived to shape multidimensional inequality in the Energiewende more broadly. Here, we find that (in)coherence is most prominently perceived to cause delays in climate mitigation, disproportionately affecting youth, low-income households, migrants, and activists. In this context, (in)coherence is not merely technical, political nor constructed, but fundamentally a matter of justice, shifting the analytical focus from whether policies and their implementation are coherent to how, and for whom, coherence matters.

Policy coherence is widely regarded as essential for achieving sustainable development, climate targets, and reducing inequality, as reflected in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Recent scholarship has moved beyond technocratic approaches, drawing on comparative politics, particularly the “3 I's” of ideas, interests, and institutions, to highlight the inherently political nature of coherence. Yet even these studies often treat coherence as binary, easily observable, and intrinsically beneficial. Building on a coherence literature focused on discourses and frames, this paper challenges these assumptions by examining how policy (in)coherence is constructed and contested. Focusing on policy implementation in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany's coal heartland, we analyse two cases before and during the 2022 energy crisis triggered by the war in Ukraine: the commissioning of the Datteln IV hard coal plant in 2020, and the clearance of the village of Lützerath for mining in 2023. Drawing on 28 semi-structured interviews with German energy, climate, and environmental experts, alongside policy and media analysis, we find that (in)coherence is greatly constructed and contested under shifting political and economic pressures, instrumentalised and legitimisatised by different actors to advance their interests, and profoundly shaped by temporal dynamics. Given recent findings that challenge the 2030 Agenda's assumption that policy coherence reduces inequalities, we also explore how (in)coherence is perceived to shape multidimensional inequality in the Energiewende more broadly. Here, we find that (in)coherence is most prominently perceived to cause delays in climate mitigation, disproportionately affecting youth, low-income households, migrants, and activists. In this context, (in)coherence is not merely technical, political nor constructed, but fundamentally a matter of justice, shifting the analytical focus from whether policies and their implementation are coherent to how, and for whom, coherence matters.

From 25 to 27 May, a delegation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) of six MEPs led by the Committee Chair David McAllister (EPP, Germany) will visit Cape Town, Pretoria, and Johannesburg, South Africa.
The delegation will meet South African political leaders and partners to discuss deepening EU-South Africa cooperation. Key topics include international relations in a changing geopolitical landscape, security, political ties, and the Global Gateway, the EU's strategy for global infrastructure investment.
AFET Missions
Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

From 25 to 27 May, a delegation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) of six MEPs led by the Committee Chair David McAllister (EPP, Germany) will visit Cape Town, Pretoria, and Johannesburg, South Africa.
The delegation will meet South African political leaders and partners to discuss deepening EU-South Africa cooperation. Key topics include international relations in a changing geopolitical landscape, security, political ties, and the Global Gateway, the EU's strategy for global infrastructure investment.
AFET Missions
Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Élue de la cinquième circonscription des Alpes-Maritimes, Christelle d’Intorni a fait savoir qu’elle continuerait d’exercer son mandat. Elle a reçu de nombreux soutiens.