By CIVICUS
Aug 6 2025 – CIVICUS discusses Bolivia’s upcoming presidential election with Juan Carlos Uribe and Lucas Illanes from ChequeaBolivia, an initiative that monitors and verifies social media content.

Juan Carlos Uribe and Lucas Illanes

On 17 August, 10 candidates will compete for the presidency in a context of deep political and social polarisation following the disqualification of former president Evo Morales. Polls suggest the conservative opposition could win more votes than the left for the first time in 20 years. Morales’ political heir is currently polling in third place, while the ruling party’s candidate is a distant eighth. With disinformation about possible fraud and electoral violence circulating on social media, civil society is working to preserve the integrity of the election.

What are the main challenges of the upcoming election?

The main challenge is for the electoral process to take place peacefully and for voters to be able to freely elect their next government. To this end, all politicians and groups must respect the rules of the game and not interfere in the process.

We need transparent and credible elections to avoid repeating crises such as that of 2019, when Morales won a fourth term amid fraud allegations, triggering mass protests that led to his resignation. Strengthening democracy is not just about guaranteeing the vote and the results: there’s also a need to protect the ecosystem from the spread of disinformation, hate speech and digital violence. Only then will it be possible to guarantee free, informed and conscious participation.

Who are the main candidates?

The election comes at a particularly complex time, marked by a deep economic crisis and strong political polarisation. The Movement for Socialism (MAS), which dominated the political scene for almost 20 years with Morales at the helm, is going through a period of internal division.

It has least three factions: that of Morales, who remains an important figure despite his 2019 resignation, that of the current president, Luis Arce, who came to power backed by the MAS but has a tense relationship with Morales, and that of Senate President Andrónico Rodríguez, previously seen as Morales’s natural successor.

Morales retains a strong base in Cochabamba, where he mobilises his supporters by presenting himself as the only person capable of reversing Bolivia’s economic crisis. Although the Constitutional Court disqualified his candidacy, he remains a central figure who sets the campaign’s tone. In recent months, his supporters have staged protests and blockades in several regions, causing fuel and food shortages and at least six deaths. Morales insists there can be no election without him and denounces the alleged exclusion of voters in rural areas, his main stronghold.

The opposition is also divided. Opposition candidates such as Samuel Doria Medina, Jorge Tuto Quiroga and Manfred Reyes Villa have not managed to form a common front. Other names being mentioned include Eva Copa, Eduardo del Castillo, Jhonny Fernández and Andrónico Rodríguez.

What do polls say?

The polls registered with the Supreme Electoral Tribunal place Doria Medina in the lead with around 19 per cent support. He is followed by Quiroga with 18 per cent and Rodríguez with 12 per cent. The difference between the top two is so small that there is talk of a technical tie. Reyes Villa and Paz Pereira are further down, accounting for just over 11 per cent combined.

A key fact is that around 20 per cent of the electorate is undecided or plans to cast blank votes. This, added to the fact that no candidate has support over 20 per cent, makes a second round highly likely, something unprecedented in Bolivia.

Turnout is usually high in Bolivia: in 2020, 90 per cent of registered voters cast their ballots. This is largely due to the fact that voting is compulsory and failure to vote results in a fine. However, this election presents a new factor: the majority of voters will be young people who are going to vote for the first time and know little about the candidates. In addition, rumours are circulating, particularly from groups close to Morales, that if he is not allowed to run there will be no election and violence will increase. This could create fear and affect turnout.

What role is social media playing in the campaign?

Social media is playing a key role, with the campaign taking place almost entirely in the digital sphere. Unlike previous elections, there is no longer as much activity on the streets: now the focus is mainly on TikTok, and additionally on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter/X. Doria Medina is the candidate who has invested most heavily in these platforms, collaborating with content creators to share his proposals.

But the shift to digital has also facilitated the spread of disinformation, both to promote candidates and attack rivals. We have identified three main narratives. First, there’s a narrative that takes advantage of the climate of crisis to share images and videos of clashes out of context with the aim of creating fear. Second, fake or manipulated polls are circulating, often spread by candidates to give the impression they have more support than they do. And third, there is a campaign seeking to create confusion about the eligibility of some candidates, particularly Morales, who publicly stated he was eligible.

Most of the accounts spreading this content are anonymous, but some systematically promote some candidates and attack others. All parties are involved in this dynamic to some degree, but the candidates most attacked in the last month have been Doria Medina and Rodríguez, followed by Copa, Fernández and Quiroga.

Some media outlets unwittingly contribute to spreading disinformation by prioritising immediacy over verification. They publish viral content without checking it, and if it is later proven to be false, they simply delete it without explanation. This undermines trust in journalism and fuels the cycle of disinformation.

How have digital platforms responded to disinformation?

Unfortunately, the response has been quite limited. As Bolivia is a small country, we do not have fluid channels of communication with big tech companies. In general, platforms only act in specific cases. For example, Meta intervened and deleted fake accounts impersonating the president of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal and temporarily suspended the account of Radio Kawsachun Coca, linked to Morales, for spreading disinformation. But these were isolated and inconsistent measures: the account was reactivated shortly afterwards.

Furthermore, Meta has stopped working with human fact-checkers and now relies almost exclusively on user reports to identify false content, a model we know does not work well. TikTok has also failed to implement effective measures. Although in some cases it labels videos generated with AI, there are no specific policies or efforts tailored to the Bolivian context. This inaction leaves a gap civil society has had to begin to fill.

How does ChequeaBolivia work against disinformation?

ChequeaBolivia takes a comprehensive approach that combines fact-checking, media literacy and collaborative work with different groups.

We know that debunking false or misleading news is not always enough: its reach is often much greater than that of our fact-checks. That’s why, in addition to verifying content every day, we develop strategies to give people, particularly young and Indigenous people, the tools they need to identify and stop disinformation on their own.

We launched a school for young fact-checkers and created campaigns such as Chequeatuvoto (‘check your vote’) that offers tools to promote critical thinking among first-time voters. We also work with Aymara Indigenous communities, using methodologies such as ‘rumour tracking’ to help them identify patterns of disinformation and respond with verified information in their languages.

At the same time, we are animating a coalition of over 15 civil society organisations to strengthen information integrity during the election. Although many of these organisations don’t directly work on disinformation, they recognise its cross-cutting impact on issues such as human rights, digital violence and hate speech.

We are committed to technological innovation: we are developing a chatbot to help answer questions about the electoral process and suspicious content. We also run audiovisual campaigns using clear and accessible language to help people better understand what is at stake.

Ultimately, we believe that the response cannot come from platforms or the media alone. We need the whole of civil society to get involved in building healthier digital environments where reliable information plays a leading role.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter

SEE ALSO
‘The closure of Meta’s US fact-checking programme is a major setback in the fight against disinformation’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Olivia Sohr 24.Jun.2025
‘It’s easier and cheaper than ever to spread disinformation on a massive scale’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Imran Ahmed 21.Sep.2024
UK: ‘Social media platforms have become breeding grounds for far-right ideologies’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Kulvinder Nagre 19.Aug.2024

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 Mubarak Al-Kuwari, Richard Ponzio, and Mohamed Ali Chihi
DOHA / WASHINGTON, DC, Aug 6 2025 – Technological progress and the course of human history have moved forward together; more recent technological innovations have emerged with unprecedented speed and reach, deeply influencing many areas of human activity.

Advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning (consisting of neural networks), for instance, enable machines to process new information in real-time. As federated learning becomes more widespread, machine learning models can collaborate without the need to share sensitive data, thereby enhancing privacy and security.

These and other recent technological developments will find applications in sectors such as healthcare, where advanced algorithms can support personalized diagnosis and treatment. New and emerging technologies, including nanotechnology and human enhancement technology, have implications for international peace and security too.

Amidst the highest number of armed conflicts since 1946, military technologies are evolving rapidly in both damage potential and distribution.

Artificial intelligence and other technologies are fast expanding the autonomous capabilities of weapons and accelerating the spread of digital dis- and misinformation. At the same time, if present trends persist, only a few countries may dominate this space, in terms of both technological innovation and “setting-the-rules” for their governance.

Against the backdrop of disruptive global forces that create new challenges, risks, and opportunities for development, security, and the global order itself, the need for effective “tech-governance” – including the engagement of all countries, big and small, through existing global institutions – has never been more urgent.

In short, effective tech-governance helps countries to employ common principles (including safety and transparency), codes of practice, and regulation to implement shared values and protect basic human rights.

Successful governance of new and emerging technologies at the global level will require the UN’s 193 member states to not only adopt new, non-binding normative frameworks (such as the recently endorsed Global Digital Compact), but also to build upon them by pursuing targeted innovations in global governance.

In the Future of International Cooperation Report 2024, produced by the Doha Forum, the Stimson Center, and the Global Institute for Strategic Research, we call for assembling an International Scientific Panel on AI (ISPAI) that extends beyond the Global Digital Compact’s limited description focused on promoting “scientific understanding through evidence-based impact, risk and opportunity assessments.”

Feeding into current intergovernmental deliberations in New York co-facilitated by the Governments of Spain and Costa Rica, we believe the ISPAI should be tasked with producing knowledge products and increasing awareness of AI risk, principles, and regulations for policy-makers.

Modeled on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the ISPAI’s ultimate objective could be to understand and address the impact of emerging digital information technologies on the world’s social, economic, political, and natural systems.

The extraordinary pace of AI innovation requires an agile and fast-paced approach to scientific assessment by continually evaluating the technology’s evolving capabilities and ramifications.

A community of practice through an AI Frontier Collaborative would further assist the ISPAI with a new international public-private partnership for expanding access to – as well as investing in – AI technology from leading private sector AI developers, where much of the innovation happens outside the public realm.

Such an initiative would build upon public-private conversations at the recent AI Action Summit in Paris and complement the Global Digital Compact’s commitment to stand-up a Global Dialogue on AI Governance, designed to engage the 118 UN Member States (primarily from the Global South) that do not belong to any of the current seven major international AI governance initiatives.

Additionally, the International Scientific Panel on AI could function as a subsidiary of, and with direct administrative support from, an International Artificial Intelligence Agency (IA2), as elaborated in this forum.

Advising the UN General Assembly and Security Council, the IA2 would boost visibility, advocacy, and resource-mobilization for global AI regulation, while monitoring, evaluation, and reporting on AI industry safeguards. It could further help countries to combat AI-enabled disinformation and the resulting misinformation that can fuel violence and aid terrorist and criminal organizations.

Critically, a scientific panel (like the ISPAI) requires an agile policy platform (like the IA2), as a chief beneficiary of ISPAI’s analysis and recommendations. This will help to ensure its policy relevance and impact, as well as to serve as a central coordination mechanism for AI and related cybertech expertise across the UN system.

Artificial intelligence and other new and emerging technologies make possible powerful new tools for problem-solving. But they also raise serious governance challenges, including in the spheres of global development and security. Effective regulation to maximize their benefits and minimize risks requires the astute combination of advanced knowledge, multistakeholder approaches, and an agile policy interface.

To prevent unbridled competition – dominated by only a select few large companies backed-up by equally large and powerful countries – from leaving everyone worse off, let alone precipitating a serious lose-lose confrontation, we must continuously update global governance tools and mechanisms to keep pace with technological advances.

Improving their effective global management will continue to usher in benefits for potentially billions of people worldwide while, simultaneously, mitigating technological risks.

Mubarak Al-Kuwari is Executive Director of the Doha Forum; Richard Ponzio is Director of the Global Governance, Justice, and Security Program and a senior fellow at the Stimson Center;

Mohamed Ali Chihi is Executive Director of the Global Institute for Strategic Research.

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’);  

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, Aug 6 2025 – As Russian forces continue to lay waste to civilian areas of towns and cities across Ukraine, Roma in the country are struggling to access compensation to help them rebuild their damaged homes.

Russia’s relentless bombing has, according to the World Bank, left 13 percent of Ukraine’s housing damaged or destroyed, affecting over 2.5 million households.

Despite this, many Ukrainians, including Roma, have refused to leave their homes in the face of relentless bombing and instead are determined to carry on living in sometimes severely damaged homes to keep their communities alive.

But a new report has shown that many Roma—one of the most vulnerable communities in Ukraine—have been unable to access state property damage compensation: only 4 percent of Roma households surveyed successfully secured compensation for war damage, despite suffering widespread destruction.

This is because requirements for applicants mean the Roma population, whose lives were already precarious long before the war began, are being disproportionately excluded from the scheme, according to the Roma Foundation for Europe (RFE), which was behind the report.

“Many of the issues we identify [in our report] affect non-Roma applicants too—particularly in occupied or frontline areas… [but] what makes the situation more severe for Roma is the combination of these factors with long-standing exclusion and economic precarity,” Neda Korunovska, Vice President for Analytics and Results at RFE, told IPS.

As in many countries in Europe, the Roma community in Ukraine has long faced social exclusion and, many claim, systemic discrimination at societal and institutional levels.

But like the rest of Ukrainian society, they have felt the full effects of Russia’s brutal full-scale invasion over the last three and half years and many have seen their homes damaged or even destroyed.

State compensation for property damage caused by the fighting is available, but experts say there are significant barriers for claimants, some of which are specifically greater for Roma people.

These include requirements such as possession of official property documents and proof of ownership—both sometimes difficult for Roma from communities where informal housing and disputed property rights are not uncommon—as well as a need for a level of digital literacy, which can be a problem for communities where levels of digital exclusion are high, according to RFE.

The group’s analysis, based on cases across four Ukrainian regions, including Zaporizhzhia, Kryvyi Rih, Odessa and Kharkiv, shows that deeply entrenched legal, administrative, and digital hurdles are blocking Roma communities from accessing aid intended for rebuilding homes and lives, the group claims.

Zeljko Jovanovic, RFE president, said that current compensation systems, although designed for order and efficiency, often overlook those with fewer resources but no less damage, and that they lack “…the required flexibility for the complex realities of pre-war informality of homes, displacement, and occupation.”

“Many affected families cannot afford the property registration fees or the costs associated with inheritance procedures. The average damage of 2,816 Euros represents several months of pre-war salary,” he added.

RFE points out that in regions like Odesa, more than half (54 percent) of Roma families lack formal property registration, while in Kryvyi Rih, not a single claim from the surveyed households has been submitted to the state registry due to legal limbo over inheritance, missing paperwork, and lack of resources to navigate the system. Even in Zaporizhzhia, where property records are strongest, low application rates point to deep mistrust in institutions, amplified by experiences of discrimination.

Some Roma contacted for the survey said they had not even bothered to apply for compensation for fear that the government might later come and demand the money back from them.

“This is a reflection of deep institutional mistrust,” said Korunovska. “This mistrust isn’t unfounded—it’s rooted in long-standing patterns of discrimination. In previous research we have undertaken, many Roma respondents have described negative treatment by public officials when seeking housing or services. Surveys consistently show high levels of social distance between Roma and the broader population in Ukraine, which reinforces these feelings of exclusion.”

RFE points out that nationally, around 61% of submitted claims have been approved, but that among Roma, the figure was only 28%—and the vast majority (86%) of people surveyed for its report never submitted claims at all due to systemic barriers.

Liubov Serhienko, 69, has lived in her home in Merefa, near Kharkiv, for the last forty years. But it has suffered severe damage from bombings by Russian forces—during one attack the roof and some ceilings collapsed and one room is now entirely uninhabitable. During a short evacuation from the house, thieves stole her boiler, fridge, and furniture.

Her daughter, Oksana, describes how the family—three generations all living under the same roof, including Oksana and her children—is forced to use blankets to try to retain whatever heat they can in rooms now largely completely exposed to the outside because walls are no longer standing. In winter, snow blows straight into the home, she says.

While neighbors have helped with some repairs, resources are limited and the building remains in disrepair. Relying solely on her pension of 3,000 UAH (around €70) to support the household—the war has taken away all job opportunities for her and members of her family—she says all she wants is the state to help fix the roof and ceiling, as she no longer has the physical strength or finances to do it herself.

In testimony to RFE, which was passed on to IPS, Serhienko said, “What I want most right now is for my family to have a roof over their heads.”

Oksana criticizes the lack of help from the state for them and other Roma in similar situations.

“The government doesn’t care. They’ve done nothing,” she said.

Her mother goes even further, explicitly linking her experience to deliberate discrimination by authorities.

“[Just] Gypsies, they say. As if we’re not people. Maybe they don’t see us as people.”

Andriy Poliakov has stayed in his home in Andriivka in the Kharkiv region since the start of the full-scale invasion, despite the severe damage the dwelling has suffered in Russian attacks.

Windows are broken and there are cracks in the walls, as he has suffered several damages to their house, windows were broken, and there are cracks in the walls, as his house has shifted structurally due to bomb blasts. Poliakov, 45, refuses to leave his home, as he is a sole caregiver for some members of his family, even though he is disabled himself, but he says life is difficult, as they have no gas or other reliable heating source and rely on a makeshift stove he built from stone and bricks.

As with almost all of those surveyed in the RFE report, Poliakov has had no help from the state with any of the damage to his home. One of the reasons so many Roma choose not to even attempt to apply for compensation is the distrust of authorities that is widespread among communities—a distrust Poliakov shares.

“They don’t care. Even though I’m disabled and it’s on paper that I’m disabled… It doesn’t matter to them,” he said.

In the wake of its findings, RFE is calling on the Ukrainian government to integrate urgent reforms into reconstruction planning, including accepting alternative proof of ownership such as utility bills or community testimony, waiving registration fees for war-affected families, and introducing temporary ownership certificates to ensure displaced or undocumented Roma have access to compensation.

RFE says it is hoping to present its findings to government representatives in the coming weeks.

“We hope this data will serve as a constructive basis for reform, especially in light of Ukraine’s broader efforts to align with European values of fairness and accountability,” said Korunovska.

Jovanovic added that “even if full compensation isn’t possible now, temporary support is essential. Roma living in damaged homes are part of Ukraine’s strength and its resistance.”

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({js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);