Category: MIL-OSI

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Chibuzo Achinivu, Visiting Assistant Professor of Political Science, Vassar College

Digital authoritarianism is a new way governments are trying to control citizens using digital and information technology. It is a growing concern for advocacy groups and those interested in freedom and democracy. It is especially worrying for those who initially heralded digital and information technologies as liberating tools that would spread information more easily for citizens.

I have studied the rise of digital authoritarianism in Africa over the last two decades. My most recent study focused on Nigeria, and its turn to digital tools for control after the 2020 #EndSARS Movement protests.

I found that local conflict and development needs drive the Nigerian government’s demand for digital authoritarianism technologies. Foreign suppliers of these technologies are motivated by both economic gain and influence in the region.

The findings are important. Firstly, it signals that the trend of using digital spaces to control populations has reached the African continent. It also shows that the trend is facilitated by foreign actors that provide governments with the technology and expertise.

What is digital authoritarianism?

One way to understand the concept of digital authoritarianism is as a form of governance or set of actions aimed at undermining accountability. It is the use of digital technologies for this goal.

Technology is used to repress voices, keep people under surveillance, and manipulate populations for regime goals and survival.

It includes but is not limited to internet and social media shutdowns. It prioritises the use of spyware to hack and monitor people through their devices. There is mass surveillance using artificial intelligence for facial recognition, and misinformation and disinformation propaganda campaigns.

What drives it in Africa

In Africa these actions are popping up in democracies like Nigeria and in autocracies alike. Perhaps the noticeable difference between these two types of governments is the subtlety of their form of digital authoritarianism and the legal recourse when such actions are unearthed.

Both governance types make claims of national security and public safety to justify these tactics. For instance, former Nigerian information minister Lai Mohammed claimed the 2020 Twitter ban was due to “the persistent use of the platform for activities that are capable of undermining Nigeria’s corporate existence”.

Autocracies are often cruder with their use of blatant tactics. They employ internet and social media shutdowns. This is often due to their unsophisticated digital authoritarianism apparatuses. Democracies often rely on more subtle surveillance and misinformation campaigns to reach their goals.

This all begs the question: what are the drivers of this trend? There are four clear ones:

• regime survival/political control

• security and counterterrorism

• electoral competition and information manipulation

• modernisation agendas (development).

On the rise

In the African context digital authoritarianism is on the rise. There’s a cohesive relationship between the foreign suppliers of the hardware, expertise and domestic demand. This demand stems from authoritarian regimes as well as regimes accessing digital systems to consolidate and modernise. There are also hybrid regimes, which are countries with a mixture democratic and authoritarian institutions.

States like China, Russia, Israel, France and the US supply both the technology and instruction or best practices to African regimes. Reasons for supply include economic gain and regional influence.

On the demand side, African regimes seek out digital authoritarianism tools mainly for development needs and for conflict resolution. Some of the largest consumers are Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, Nigeria and Ghana.

The study

I found there was evidence that Nigeria’s development goals and efforts to quell conflicts drive the use of technology to repress its people. Using the example of the #EndSARS movement, social media platform shutdowns and efforts to build a firewall akin to China’s great firewall serve as evidence for this.

In the days following Twitter’s removal of a post by President Muhammadu Buhari, Twitter was banned in Nigeria. The administration cited its use to further unrest, instability, and secessionist movements. There were claims that this step was taken to maintain internet sovereignty.

However, the ban also undermined social movements that were successfully holding the government accountable. Following domestic and international outcry over the ban, there were reports that the Nigerian government had approached China. The purpose of the contact was to replicate their “Great Firewall” in Nigeria’s internet control apparatus. (The focus of China’s project is to monitor and censor what can and cannot be seen through an online network in China.) This would allow the state to manage access to certain cites and block unwanted content from reaching Nigerians.

On the supply side, China’s economic commitments to the country and concerted efforts to cultivate certain norms in the country and region offer insights into the motivations for supply in this case and the broader continent.

Again, regime type dictates just how these technologies will be used. Interviews conducted with permanent secretaries and ministers of Nigerian ministries were particularly revealing. They confirmed that repressive government practices in the real world are informing their activity in digital spaces.

For instance, they intimated that the repression that occurs during protests in the streets in order to manage “lawlessness” is being replicated online. Its purpose is to ensure peace and stability.

For development needs, countries like Nigeria initially seek out foreign suppliers to furnish them with state of the art technology systems. The objective is to establish or refurbish their information and communications technology apparatuses.

These include but are not limited to national broadband networks) such as fiber optic networks, mobile telecommunications networks and smart city governance systems. Though these are often not repressive in nature, they are capable of dual use. Thus, these development needs provide technologies that are then utilized in an authoritarian fashion for state building goals.

There is also evidence that some suppliers provide instruction on how to use these technologies for repression. In some instances, under the guise of development needs, regimes seek out more repressive tools such as spyware alongside these infrastructural development programs. At this stage, the boundary between development and security blurs, as modernization becomes a vehicle for national security, cyber defense, regime protection, and information control.

What can be done?

I propose a three-pronged approach to address the three drivers. First of all, more has to be done on the international front to curb the sale of repressive tools to states. There must be a conversation about the norms of these technologies and their use for repression in both democracies and autocracies.

On the demand side, it appears those practices that have plagued the hopes of freedom and democracy in the real world have to be addressed. Naturally, no movement on the digital front is complete without a real world manifestation. It seems logical that eradicating digital repression necessitates addressing repression in general.

Finally, regulatory legal and institutional oversight alongside human rights benchmarks must be achieved. These will accompany digital and privacy rights in cyberspace.

– Nigeria’s government is using digital technology to repress citizens. A researcher explains how
– https://theconversation.com/nigerias-government-is-using-digital-technology-to-repress-citizens-a-researcher-explains-how-267032

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Pritish Behuria, Reader in Politics, Governance and Development, Global Development Institute, University of Manchester

How successful is luxury tourism in Africa? What happens if it fails to produce higher tourism revenues: can it be reversed? And does it depend on what kind of government is in place?

Pritish Behuria is a scholar of the political economy of development who has conducted a study in Botswana, Mauritius and Rwanda to find answers to questions like this. We asked him about his findings.

---

What is luxury tourism and how prevalent is it in Africa?

Luxury tourism aims to attract high-spending tourists to stay at premium resorts and lodges or visit exclusive attractions. It’s a strategy that’s being adopted widely by governments around the world and also in African countries.

It’s been promoted by multilateral agencies like the World Bank and the United Nations, as well as environmental and conservation organisations.

The logic underlying luxury tourism is that if fewer, high-spending tourists visit, this will result in less environmental impact. It’s often labelled as a “high-value, low-impact” approach.

---

Read more: Why your holiday flight is still not being powered by sustainable aviation fuel

---

However, studies have shown that luxury tourism does not lead to reduced environmental impact. Luxury tourists are more likely to use private jets. Private jets are more carbon intense than economy class travel. Supporters of luxury tourism also ignore that it reinforces economic inequalities, commercialises nature and restricts land access for indigenous populations.

In some ways, of course, the motives of African countries seem understandable. They remain starved of much-needed foreign exchange in the face of rising trade deficits. The allure of luxury tourism seems almost impossible to resist.

How did you go about your study?

I have been studying the political economy of Rwanda for nearly 15 years. The government there made tourism a central part of its national vision.

Over the years, many government officials and tourism stakeholders highlighted the challenges of luxury tourism strategies. Even so, there remains a single-mindedness to prioritise luxury tourism.

I found that, in Rwanda, luxury tourism resulted in a reliance on foreign-owned hotels and foreign travel agents, exposing potential leakages in tourism revenues. Crucially, tourism was not creating enough employment. There was also a skills lag in the sector. Employees were not being trained quickly enough to meet the surge of investments in hotels.

---

Read more: What cost-of-living crisis? Luxury travel is booming – and set to grow further

---

So I decided to investigate the effects of luxury tourism in other African countries. I wanted to know who benefits and how it is being reversed in countries that are turning away from it.

I interviewed government officials, hotel owners and other private sector representatives, aviation officials, consultants and journalists in all three countries. Added to this was a thorough review of economic data, industry reports and grey literature (including newspaper articles).

What are your take-aways from Mauritius?

Mauritius was the first of the three countries to explicitly adopt a luxury tourism strategy. In the late 1970s and early 1980s the government began to encourage European visitors to the island’s “sun-sand-sea” attractions. Large domestic business houses became lead investors, building luxury hotels and buying coastal land.

Over the years, tourism has provided significant revenues for the Mauritian economy. By 2019, the economy was earning over US$2 billion from the sector (before dropping during the COVID pandemic).

However, tourism has also been symbolic of the inequality that has characterised Mauritius’ growth. The all-inclusive resort model – where luxury hotels take care of all of a visitor’s food and travel needs themselves – has meant that the money being spent by tourists doesn’t always enter the local economy. A large share of profits remains outside the country or with large hotels.

After the pandemic, the Mauritian government took steps to loosen its focus on luxury tourism. It opened its air space to attract a broader range of tourists and re-started direct flights to Asia. There’s growing agreement within government that the opening up of tourism will go some way towards sustaining revenues and employment in the sector. Especially as some other key sectors (like offshore finance) may face an uncertain future.

And from Botswana?

Botswana followed Mauritius by formally adopting a luxury tourism strategy in 1990. Its focus was on its wilderness areas (the Okavango Delta) and wildlife safari lodges. For decades, there were criticisms from scholars about the inequalities in the sector.

Most lodges and hotels were foreign owned. Most travel agencies that booked all-inclusive trips operated outside Botswana. There were very few domestic linkages. Very little domestic agricultural or industrial production was used within the sector.

However, I found that the direction of tourism policies had also become increasingly political. Certain politicians were aligned with conservation organisations and foreign investors in prioritising luxury tourism. Former president Ian Khama, for example, banned trophy hunting on ethical grounds in 2014. He pushed photographic tourism, where travellers visit destinations mainly to take photos. But critics allege he and his allies benefited from the push for photographic tourism.

Photographic tourism is closely linked with the problematic promotion of “unspoilt” wilderness areas that conform to foreign ideas about the “myth of wild Africa”.

President Mokgweetsi Masisi reversed the hunting ban once he took power. He argued it had adverse effects on rural communities and increased human-wildlife conflict. He believed that regulated hunting could be a tool for better wildlife management and could produce more benefits for communities.

Since the latter 2010s, Botswana’s government has loosened the emphasis on luxury tourism and tried to diversify tourism offerings. It has relaxed visa regulations for Asian countries, for example, to allow a wider range of tourists to visit more easily.

What about Rwanda?

Of the three cases, Rwanda was the most recent to adopt a luxury tourism strategy. However, it has remained the most committed to this strategy. Rwanda’s model is centred on mountain gorilla trekking and premium wildlife experiences. It’s augmented by Rwanda’s attempt to become a hub for business and sports tourism through high-profile conferences and events.

Rwanda invited global hotel brands (like the Hyatt and Marriott) to build hotels and invested heavily in the country’s “nation brand” through sponsoring sports teams. The “luxury” element is managed through maintaining a high price to visit the country’s main tourist attraction: mountain gorillas. Rwanda is one of the few countries where mountain gorillas live.

After the pandemic, the government lowered prices to visit mountain gorillas but has also regularly stated its commitment to luxury tourism.

What did you learn by comparing the three?

I wanted to know why some countries reverse luxury tourism strategies once they fail while others don’t.

It is quite clear that luxury tourism strategies will always have disadvantages. As this study shows, luxury tourism repeatedly benefits only very few actors (often foreign investors or foreign-owned entities) and does not create sufficient employment or provide wider benefits for domestic populations. My research shows that the political pressure faced by democratic governments (like Botswana and Mauritius) forced them to loosen their luxury tourism strategies. This was not the case in more authoritarian Rwanda.

---

Read more: Travelling in 2025? Here’s how to become a ‘regenerative’ tourist

---

Rwanda’s position goes against a lot of recent literature on African political economy, which argues that parties with a stronger hold on power would be able to deliver better development outcomes.

While that may be case in some sectors, the findings of this study suggest that weaker political parties may actually be more responsive to changing policies that are creating inequality than countries with stronger political parties in power.

– Luxury tourism is a risky strategy for African economies – new study of Botswana, Mauritius, Rwanda
– https://theconversation.com/luxury-tourism-is-a-risky-strategy-for-african-economies-new-study-of-botswana-mauritius-rwanda-267877

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Solaja Mayowa Oludele, Lecturing, Olabisi Onabanjo University

Every year humanity produces nearly 300 million tonnes of plastic. Only a fraction ever gets recycled. Most ends up in rivers, oceans and soil, slowly breaking down into tiny, invisible microplastics that get into what we eat and drink.

Decades of recycling drives and policy bans have not altered the deep-rooted behaviours behind this crisis. But what if the next big environmental solution isn’t a new law or technology – but a game?

I am an environmental sociologist and behaviour change researcher from Nigeria. I developed a game called EcoBall in 2023 as a social innovation that makes sport a tool for sustainability.

The concept is discussed in my peer-reviewed paper.

EcoBall reimagines football as a discipline of training for environmental stewardship. Instead of chasing goals alone, teams compete to collect, sort and creatively reuse plastic waste. Each match becomes a live demonstration of the circular economy – the idea that materials should be reused, not discarded.

Here I describe how the game works, why it influences people’s behaviour, and what we found when we tested it in Nigerian schools and youth clubs.

Three zones, one planet

An EcoBall match uses a real ball made from tightly woven recycled plastic bags – the “EcoBall” itself. Two or more teams compete across three timed “learning zones”, combining physical play with environmental tasks.

• Collection zone (10-15 minutes): To start play, the ball is placed at the centre of the field. Players pass and dribble it like they would in football or handball. The pitch or play area is scattered with lightweight, clean plastic litter. Teams race to gather the litter from the designated area and place it in a team bag or collection net along the sidelines before rejoining the game. Points are awarded for the amount and diversity of plastics collected.

• Sorting zone: Back on the pitch, players classify the plastics correctly (PET bottles, sachets, nylon wrappers and so on). Accurate sorting earns additional points and practical recycling knowledge. Teams earn points for goals and for the quantity or weight of litter collected.

• Creative zone: After each game, the collected plastics are sorted and delivered to recycling or upcycling partners. Using selected materials, teams craft new items – from art pieces to flower planters or even another EcoBall. Judges score on creativity, teamwork and utility.

Participants also engage in short reflective or educational sessions to discuss plastic pollution, sustainability habits, and collective responsibility.

The champion is not only the fastest but also the team with the most environmental impact.

What seems to be a game is really learning through doing. Participants learn sustainability not by being preached at but by doing it, competing and relishing their achievements together.

The psychology behind the game

EcoBall draws on two social-science ideas: the theory of planned behaviour and social capital theory. The first explains why people adopt sustainable habits. By making recycling fun, social and rewarding, EcoBall reshapes attitudes and perceived norms – the key drivers of behaviour.

The second highlights the power of trust and networks. EcoBall builds these bonds as teams collaborate and share victories, creating social momentum that keeps environmental action alive long after the game ends.

In designing and evaluating EcoBall, I combined these theories with research on sport-for-development and environmental education. Where I was both participant-observer and referee, the assessment compared data from questionnaires, focus groups and observation diaries. The design allowed for transparency, credibility, and contextual validity in interpretation of EcoBall’s impact on environmental attitudes and behaviours.

Tested on the field

Pilot sessions were conducted at several schools and youth clubs across Ogun State to ascertain the level to which EcoBall enhances environmental awareness, cooperation and pro-active participation in plastic litter removal.

The pilots were community-led and research-motivated and were supported by small donations from local NGOs and schools, and recycling businesses which provided gloves, collection bags and bins.

---

Read more: Plastic pollution in Nigeria: whose job is it to clean up the mess?

---

Instructors reported increased cooperation and leadership. Players described being more responsible for their surroundings, and some of them formed neighbourhood clean-up clubs which extended weeks beyond the games. While the long-term effect is yet to be studied, these early findings show that EcoBall is likely to induce actual behavioural change.

From waste to wealth

EcoBall also shows that environmental action can create livelihoods. In one pilot, students built benches and flower planters from bottles gathered during matches. Others began selling up-cycled crafts, while the organisation of events – coaching, logistics and recycling partnerships – generated new work opportunities.

Such experiences echo the circular-economy principle of turning waste into worth.

Uniting generations and communities

Because EcoBall requires little equipment – just gloves, bags and open space – it thrives in low-resource communities.

The design was intentionally simple, ensuring accessibility and inclusion where conventional sports infrastructure is absent.

Although EcoBall is inexpensive to initiate, its long-term delivery as a structured sport-for-development and environmental education programme requires sustained funding. Investment is needed for facilitator training, community engagement, and monitoring activities. This is typical of community interventions: low-cost to launch but funding-dependent to sustain and scale.

Children, parents, and grandparents can play together, bridging generations and backgrounds. This shared passion generates a feeling of ownership of public spaces and renewed pride in keeping them clean.

---

Read more: Not sure how to keep your kids busy and happy these holidays? Here are five tips.

---

Schools are able to incorporate EcoBall into extracurricular activities, municipalities can organise tournaments tied in with cleanup initiatives, and corporations can make it part of their corporate social responsibility initiatives.

Following early successes, two NGOs that work with youth development have begun using EcoBall in their environmental clubs, and discussions are underway with the National Youth Service Corps to introduce it into community services.

Challenges and opportunities

No innovation is challenge-free. EcoBall needs consistent funding, materials and cultural adaptation. Keeping players engaged may require creative incentives – such as mobile apps to track points or online leaderboards connecting communities globally.

Yet these hurdles create opportunities. A “World EcoBall Cup” could one day unite cities or nations, rewarding those who divert the most plastic from the environment.

Instead of medals, winners would boast cleaner beaches and thriving circular economies.

Play for the planet

The global plastic crisis demands solutions that move people, not just policies.

EcoBall does exactly that – bringing sport together with green purpose and demonstrating that climate action has the power to be human, inclusive and fun.

---

Read more: Informal waste collection shouldn’t let plastic polluters off the hook: here’s why

---

It is not the sole responsibility of scientists or policymakers to fight pollution. It belongs to everyone willing to pick up a ball – or a bottle – and make a difference.

– Ecoball: how to turn picking up litter into a game for kids
– https://theconversation.com/ecoball-how-to-turn-picking-up-litter-into-a-game-for-kids-267888