By Andrew Firmin
LONDON, Feb 22 2024 – Pakistan’s 8 February election has resulted in an uneasy compromise that few wanted or expected. There’s little indication the outcome is going to reverse recent regression in civic freedoms.

Army calls the shots

Around 128 million people can vote in Pakistan, but it’s the army, the sixth-biggest in the world, that’s always had the upper hand. In recent decades, it’s preferred to exert its power by strongly influencing the civilian government rather than outright military rule. Prime ministers have allied with the military to win power and been forced out when disagreements set in. No prime minister has ever served a full term.

In April 2022, Prime Minister Imran Khan was ousted through a parliamentary vote of no-confidence. But it was common knowledge this was the military’s will. Khan, having cosied up to the generals to come to power in 2018, had publicly and vocally fallen out with them over economic and foreign policy. He had to go.

Khan’s fall from grace was swift. He survived an assassination attempt in November 2022. In December 2023, he was barred from running in the election. Just ahead of voting he was found guilty in three separate trials, with the longest sentence being 14 years. Bushara Bibi, Khan’s wife, was jailed too.

The army turned to a former foe, Nawaz Sharif, three times previously prime minister. After he last fell out of favour in 2017, he was forced out and found guilty of corruption. Yet for this election he’d evidently patched things up enough to become the army’s favoured anti-Khan candidate.

A catalogue of restrictions

But voters didn’t go along with the army’s choice. Candidates running as independents but affiliated with Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party won the most seats, albeit short of an outright majority. Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) came second, with the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), its partner in the 2022 coalition of convenience that replaced Khan, third.

This was a shock result, given the obstacles placed in the PTI’s way. The government postponed the election from November to February so, it said, it could hold a census. The suspicion was that the move was to allow more time to prosecute Khan and lean on his party’s politicians to swap allegiances.

Sure enough, some PTI representatives were banned from standing and others faced harassment and violence seeking to persuade them to distance themselves from Khan. In the biggest blow, PTI candidates were banned from using Khan’s cricket bat symbol on ballot papers. Symbols are crucial for mobilising party support, since over 40 per cent of people are unable to read. PTI candidates were forced to run as independents.

There was never any prospect of equal space for campaigning. Last year, the media regulator applied a de facto ban on mentioning Khan’s name on TV. In August 2023, it directed TV channels not to give airtime to 11 people, among them Khan and journalists considered sympathetic towards him. As the election neared, the military interfered in the media on a daily basis, telling them which stories to run.

Given these constraints, and the near impossibility of holding physical rallies, PTI used online opportunities. Khan kept up a virtual presence through AI-generated videos. WhatsApp was used to inform PTI supporters which independent candidates to vote for.

But constraints came here too. When the PTI organised an online rally in December, authorities blocked access to major social media platforms and slowed the internet down. On election day, they imposed a full internet and mobile data shutdown for the first time in Pakistan’s electoral history. The authorities claimed they’d done so on security grounds – the Islamic State terrorist group carried out two deadly bombings the day before – but it made independent oversight of voting and counting much harder. Further restrictions on Twitter followed after the results were out.

⚠️ Confirmed: Live metrics show a nation-scale disruption to social media platforms across #Pakistan, including X/Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube; the incident comes as persecuted former PM Imran Khan's party, PTI, launches its election fundraising telethon pic.twitter.com/QIBGcxGty3

— NetBlocks (@netblocks) January 7, 2024

This pressure on the PTI and its supporters came on top of the ongoing repression of civic freedoms by successive governments. Pakistani authorities have continued to criminalise, threaten and harass human rights activists, restrict online freedoms, intimidate journalists, censor media and violently repress peaceful protests, particularly by women’s rights activists and people from the Baloch and Pashtun ethnic groups.

Uncertainty ahead

Despite the highly unlevel playing field, results show that many took the opportunity the election offered to communicate discontent with military influence, a political establishment dominated by two families and the dire economic conditions. A youthful population has found something appealing in Khan’s fiery populist rhetoric.

But what’s resulted is something few voters likely wanted. The PML-N and PPP quickly announced a resumption of their coalition. The PML-N’s Shehbaz Sharif, Nawaz Sharif’s brother, is set to return as prime minister. It would appear to be a coalition united by little more than a determination to keep the PTI out of power, suggesting a weak and fractious government will result.

Strong opposition can be expected. PTI supporters aren’t accepting this quietly. The party claims rigged votes denied it more seats. Thousands have protested and numerous legal cases have been filed. Their claims were given credence when an official in Rawalpindi stepped forward to say he’d been involved in election rigging. One politician from a minor party also announced he was renouncing his seat because the vote had been rigged to exclude the PTI-backed candidate.

Khan is no democratic hero. When he was in power and enjoyed the military’s favour, he used the same tools of repression now being applied to him and his party. Civic space conditions worsened under Khan and there’s been no let-up since.

The bigger problem is a system where the military calls the shots, sets the parameters that elected governments must stay within and actively works to suppress dissent. With many young voters angry and wanting change, problems can only be building up for the future. It’s vital that civic space be opened up so people have peaceful means to express dissent, seek change and hold power to account.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Bibbi Abruzzini and Clarisse Sih, Forus
NEW YORK, Feb 22 2024 – A coalition of over 350 civil society organisations part of the #UNmute initiative, shared concerns over the current engagement mechanisms for civil society at the UN – particularly in light of the upcoming Summit of the Future.

At the heart of global policy-making, civil society organisations have long been seen as those bearing the torch of grassroots advocacy and bringing forward the messages of communities worldwide. Civil society has changed the world we live in, fighting against discrimination, securing voting rights for women, raising awareness about environmental issues, being at the forefront of humanitarian aid, and advocating for equity and acceptance. Civil society’s impact is undeniable, yet increasingly questioned with negative narratives, risks to their safety, and limited access to decision- making spaces. To silence or exclude this voice is to silence the collective needs and aspirations of millions of people around the world.

At the national level, attacks on civic space and democratic freedoms have escalated. New legislation limits civil society’s ability to engage in online and offline advocacy. International collaboration between civil society networks, social movements and activists is increasingly criticized, penalized, and criminalized. This is unfortunately replicated at the global level.

As we approach the Summit of the Future – set to to redirect our course towards a more effective and equitable future, there is a worrying drift from collaboration to restriction in the relationship between the UN, Member States in their national and local contexts, and civil society. For several years, civil society voices have found themselves on the periphery, with challenges ranging from limited access at key UN sessions such as the General Assembly’s High Level Week, to restrictive participation in other key UN forums such as the High Level Political Forum, the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), the Conference of the Parties (COP) and the Internet Governance Forum. In fact, the current system, contrasts with earlier UN processes and falls short of the UN’s stated commitment and previous good practices to inclusivity as written in the U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres in Our Common Agenda.

“For civil society activists and human rights defenders facing repression at national level the space at the UN is very important. The UN opened up since the 1990s. For example, it was possible to contribute to the 2030 Agenda development in national consultations, regional meetings and as part of the Open Working Group in New York. We were never excluded a decade ago. Therefore, we are disappointed that this is happening now. It will weaken the Summit of the Future,” says Ingo Ritz, Director of the Global Call to Action against Poverty.

Despite efforts to promote inclusivity and engagement on paper, in practice civil society organizations frequently face a lack of access to information and resources, limited opportunities to participate in decision-making processes, as well as exclusion from key meetings and events, increasing repraisals, discrimination, harassment, and insufficient avenues for input in policy discussions. The clock is ticking, and the integration of civil society into the heart of the UN is not only beneficial, it is essential.

Jyotsna Mohan Singh, representing the Asia Development Alliance, points out that “Over the years, we have seen the UN open its doors to civil society, but lately those doors seem to be closing slightly. Stronger collaboration is not only desirable, it is necessary. Engaging with the UN should not be a labyrinth where only a few know the way. We need transparent and inclusive processes that do not marginalise any civil society organisation on the basis of size or origin. Civil society sees the UN as a beacon of hope, a platform for global cooperation, where the voices of the marginalised and the aspirations of humanity are heard, leading to a world of equality, sustainability and true peace.”

Over 350 civil society organizations part of the #UNmute initiative have come together to issue a united call for inclusivity and participation in the preparatory process of the forthcoming Summit of the Future. The collective, which spans a broad spectrum of global civil society including Civicus, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Forus, the United Nations Foundation, the Coalition for the UN We Need, World Vision International, Greenpeace, Global Focus, among many others, has addressed a statement putting pressure on key figures at the United Nations.

“From the streets to the UN halls, we witness the alarming and continuous shrinking space for civil society and rights defenders. With the aim of restoring trust and preparing the UN for the future, the voice of civil society must be key for the Summit of the Future. This requires Member States to support and promote the unique role of civil society, especially the historically marginalized and underrepresented communities and informal activist and social movements, from New York to Nairobi. The UN is for the ‘we’, it is for the people, and it is based on their trust that the success of the Summit of the Future should be held against,” says Global Focus‘ Director, Mette Müller Kristensen.

What needs to change

The role of civil society cannot just be recognized, it needs to be actively strenghtened and placed at the core of global governance, where it belongs. We need to build, rather than erode, trust. The success of the Summit of the Future should be measured on how it delivers for people – inclusively and meaningfully. We call for immediate action, including the establishment of inclusive platforms for engagement, designated seats for Major Groups and other Stakeholders (MGoS) and civil society representatives in all phases of the Summit of the Future, and a comprehensive review of civil society’s engagement in UN processes. These measures aim to democratize representation, ensuring that all voices and perspectives are equally represented in international dialogues, which unfortunately is not the case as of today.

As Mavalow Christelle Kalhoule, civil society leader and Chair of Forus and SPONG, the Burkina Faso NGO network, puts it, “In a world increasingly driven by technology, many of our colleagues from under-represented regions find themselves mute, not for lack of passion or knowledge, but because of the digital divide and lack of resources and access. To truly champion global voices, we need to bridge this gap and ensure that civil society has the tools and support it needs to engage meaningfully in political processes and amplify the voices of the myriad communities and NGOs it represents. Civil society participation must be simplified and facilitated; it is also about real political will. Genuine progress within the framework of the United Nations depends on the real inclusion of civil society. Every decision taken without their engagement risks missing the heartbeat of the communities we serve. The purpose of the UNmute initiative is not to raise a few voices, but to ensure that the chorus of civil society is heard loud and clear at every meeting of the United Nations.”

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

Fish vanished from the sea near Tsunza, a village on Kenya’s coast, after several oil spills between 2003 and 2006. The impact of this and the vanishing mangroves badly affected the livelihoods of women. Now they are the champions of the restoration of one of the global warming mitigation superheroes—mangroves.

By Jackson Ambole
NAIROBI, Feb 22 2024 – A group of 15 smallholder farmers in Kenya petitioned the country’s High Court, seeking to compel the government to review sections of a law that bans the sharing and exchange of uncertified and unregistered seeds.

Rural smallholder farmers in Kenya rely on informal farmer-managed systems to acquire seeds through seed saving and sharing but the Seeds and Plant Varieties Act is limiting them.

Kenya’s government enacted the law in 2012 with the aim of developing, promoting, and regulating a modern and competitive seed industry, but farmers are pushing for its review.

The informal farmer-managed seed system allows farmers to store a portion of their seeds after harvesting, which guarantees them seeds for the next planting season.

In the legal battle, filed in September 2022, smallholder farmers want the court to compel the government to review the law, which punishes offenders with a prison sentence of up to a maximum of 2 years, a fine of up to KES 1,000,000 or both.

Richard Opete, who led the farmers in filing the petition, argues that the current seed policy “has robbed farmers of the right to use their indigenous seeds freely’’.

“The law gives multinational seed companies power to control our biological resources and this has led to decreased food production by smallholder farmers’’ says Opete.

Further, Opete explains that seed sharing among Kenyan communities has always been a cheaper option for farmers who cannot afford expensive certified seed and fertiliser.

“With seed sharing, every farmer has something to plant and in turn something to harvest and this safeguards communities from food insecurity shocks’’

“A farmer who does not have money might not access certified seeds but they can freely get indigenous ones from a neighbour who has a surplus,’’ says Opete.

Seed Sovereignty 

Elizabeth Atieno, a food campaigner at Greenpeace Africa says “the current seed law favours  big multinationals by giving them room to exploit local resources and that the law sold Kenya’s food system to the highest bidder’’.

Atieno adds that the current seed regulations have forced Kenya’s smallholder farmers into “overdependence on seed companies for seed supply. The effect is a disrupted and unstable food system because the certified seeds come at a cost and at times the supply fails to meet the demand.”

Greenpeace Africa hopes the court case will pave way for the integration of the farmer seed management system into the law to enable smallholder farmers to share and exchange indigenous seeds freely

Veronica Kiboino, a farmer from Baringo County, west of the capital Nairobi, observes that she cannot afford to purchase certified seeds for every planting season.  “Seed sharing is our culture and way of life. The tradition of seed sharing does not require money and this means that I can still plant and harvest food even when money is not available,” says Kiboino.

For farmers like Francis Gika, the traditional ways of preserving and multiplying indigenous seeds are something that “the government should help improve rather than criminalise them.’’

“The seed law is selective, oppressive, and anti-smallholder farmers. A poor rural farmer cannot afford the Kshs. 200,000 (about USD 1,302) to register and get certification for a seed variety as the law demands,” he says.

Gika warns that the punitive law has a direct effect on the economic wellbeing of smallholder farmers because “without seeds, they cannot produce enough food to sell and make money.”

Francis Ngiri, a farmer, wants the seed law to document all Kenyan indigenous seed varieties “to protect their sovereignty and history.”

“What the Seed Act should be focusing on is protecting the sovereignty of indigenous Kenyan seeds from exploitation by multinational seed breeders who are out to make profits.”

Damaris Kiloko Mutiso, a farmer from Machakos County east of Nairobi, says, “Seed sharing is an old-age tradition passed on from our forefathers. Unlike certified seeds, the use of indigenous seeds is cost effective as it does not require the use of chemical-based inputs.”

Protecting Indigenous Seeds from Extinction

Seed Savers Network Kenya is a grass-roots network working with smallholder farmers to establish community seed banks across Kenya. The organisation has been helping farmers trace and preserve indigenous seeds at risk of extinction through the promotion of seed sharing.

The network has so far established 51 community seed banks, serving over 60, 000 smallholder farmers countrywide.

Dominic Kimani, Advocacy Officer at Seed Savers Network, argues that smallholder farmers have “for long been custodians of indigenous seeds and should therefore be supported by the government by enacting laws that protect them.”

“Criminalising informal seed exchange and sharing has a direct effect on farmers’ livelihoods. It encourages biopiracy and reduces plant genetic diversity, which greatly affects the resilience of smallholder farmers and their families,’’ notes Kimani.

Limiting the rights of farmers to share, exchange, and sell seeds in the informal seed sector, according to Kimani, “reduces diverse seed access and  aggravates food and nutritional insecurity in the country.”

Kimani adds that forcing farmers to rely on hybrid seeds poses a big threat to food biodiversity and traditional food cultures.

Biodiversity Conservation

Ben Wanyoro, an agronomist, says indigenous seeds are naturally adapted through the influence of local environmental factors in their growing environments.

“Indigenous seeds and foods are resilient to threats arising from pests, disease, and human interventions and are heterogeneous and polymorphic,” added Wanyoro.

Wanyoro argues that “promoting and supporting indigenous seed sharing assures sustainability not only of the food system but also of natural resources.”

The Biodiversity and Biosafety Association of Kenya National Coordinator Anne Maina says a review of the law will ease restrictions hindering the circulation of indigenous varieties, which are rich in nutritious value compared to exotic imports.

“The Seed and Plant Varieties Act prohibits the selling of uncertified seeds, thereby technically locking out the indigenous varieties from the market,” says Maina.

Maina notes that a repeal of the restrictive act will allow small-scale farmers to freely share homegrown seeds, which will help preserve the country’s endangered biodiversity.

“Indigenous seed varieties have unique traits that are well-suited to local climatic conditions, making them resilient to pests and diseases, which can lead to a loss of biodiversity,’’ she says.

Dr. Felista Makini, the Deputy Director at the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO), agrees that indigenous seeds and traditional African crops have high resilience to climate change and drought.

KALRO operates the Genetic Resources Research Institute (GeRRI), which seeks to safeguard traditional seeds and prevent the loss of genetic resources. The gene bank has over 50,000 plant varieties.

Stakeholder Push

Rosina Mbenya from Participatory Ecological Land Use Management (PELUM) says the move by farmers to file the petition was critical to ensuring that indigenous seed varieties are protected.

‘Special attention must be accorded to the farmer-managed seed system because they have the capacity and knowledge to nurture indigenous seeds and any prohibitive laws should be scrapped to allow continuity,’’ Mbenya said.

In October 2022, Kenya’s government approved the use of genetically modified organism (GMO) seeds, citing “the need to address the effects of drought and improve food security through the adoption of crops resistant to pests and disease,”  a move that was criticised by organic farmers in the country.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Kenya’s agriculture sector contributes 33 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) and another 27 percent of GDP indirectly through linkages with other sectors. Agriculture employs more than 40 percent of Kenya’s total population and 70 percent of Kenya’s rural people.

The case is ongoing.
IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);