Understanding Political Dynamics

"Disinformation campaigns aimed at undermining electoral integrity are expected to play an ever larger role in elections due to the increased availability of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools that can produce high-quality synthetic text, audio, images and videos and their potential for targeted personalization. As these campaigns become more sophisticated and manipulative, the foreseeable consequence is further erosion of trust in institutions and heightened disintegration of civic integrity, jeopardizing a host of human rights, including electoral rights and the right to freedom of thought. → These developments are occurring at a time when the companies that create the fabric of digital society should be investing heavily in, but instead are dismantling, the “integrity” or “trust and safety” teams that counter these threats. Policy makers must hold AI companies liable for the harms caused or facilitated by their products that could have been reasonably foreseen. They should act quickly to ban using AI to impersonate real people or organizations, and require the use of watermarking or other provenance tools to allow people to differentiate between AI-generated and authentic content." By David Evan Harris and Aaron Shull of the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI).

[Reflections from Negeri Sembilan] I’ve spent the past few days focused on Negeri Sembilan, speaking to voters, political leaders and analysts, trying to understand what happened beyond the final seat count. On paper, Pakatan Harapan had a compelling story to tell. A stronger ringgit, record investments and an economy estimated to have grown 5.8% in the first half of the year. Negeri Sembilan itself has attracted semiconductor, automotive and battery investments, while development is visible across the state. Yet one thing became increasingly apparent: good macroeconomic numbers do not necessarily translate into good public sentiment. The two words I heard most often from dissatisfied voters were “arrogant” and “disconnected.” Whether those perceptions are fair is another debate, but politics is driven as much by perception as reality. Many felt the government had become complacent and was no longer listening to everyday concerns. That’s something no GDP figure can fully explain. This is also why election reporting cannot rely solely on numbers or polling. Speaking to voters and understanding why they make certain choices completes the picture. Among younger Chinese voters I interviewed, many said they wanted to “teach PH a lesson.” It wasn’t necessarily because they had switched to BN. Some simply stayed home. Among Indian voters, several felt they were no longer respected or listened to. These are perceptions, but perceptions shape elections. BN, meanwhile, ran a disciplined campaign. Much like Johor, UMNO relied on its grassroots machinery rather than centring the campaign on a Menteri Besar candidate. Combined with the consolidation of the Malay vote behind BN and PN, that strategy delivered. The results reflected that. BN returned to power with 18 seats. PH was reduced to 11, while PN won seven. DAP fell from 11 seats to nine. Bersatu was arguably the biggest casualty after disappearing from the ballot under its own banner following the party split. Two defeats also stood out. Anthony Loke lost for the first time in more than two decades of electoral politics, while former Menteri Besar Aminuddin Harun lost Linggi after moving from Sikamat. Another observation was the continued reliance on racial and religious narratives. Much has been said about one side exploiting these issues, but from my observations, identity politics was present across the political divide. Different messages, same politics of fear. Negeri Sembilan offers an important preview of what could come in Melaka and eventually GE16. Does this mean BN is on course to return to Putrajaya? I don’t think it’s that straightforward. Three consecutive victories have shifted the political momentum, but senior UMNO figures I’ve spoken to are in no hurry for a snap general election. For me, the biggest lesson is simple: economic indicators matter, but elections are ultimately about whether people feel heard. Sometimes, that explains far more than the numbers ever can.

Dear friends and colleagues, as we all watch with horror and disbelief what is happening in the US, I want to share this very helpful insight from sociologist Jennifer Walter that was shared with me. Sending courage, calm and love! Sandrine "As a sociologist, I need to tell you: Your overwhelm is the goal. 1/ The flood of 200+ executive orders in Trump's first days exemplifies Naomi Klein's "shock doctrine" - using chaos and crisis to push through radical changes while people are too disoriented to effectively resist. This isn't just politics as usual - it's a strategic exploitation of cognitive limits. 2/ Media theorist McLuhan predicted this: When humans face information overload, they become passive and disengaged. The rapid-fire executive orders create a cognitive bottleneck, making it nearly impossible for citizens and media to thoroughly analyze any single policy. 3/ Agenda-setting theory explains the strategy: When multiple major policies compete for attention simultaneously, it fragments public discourse. Traditional media can't keep up with the pace, leading to superficial coverage. The result? Weakened democratic oversight and reduced public engagement. What now? 1/ Set boundaries: Pick 2-3 key issues you deeply care about and focus your attention there. You can't track everything - that's by design. Impact comes from sustained focus, not scattered awareness. 2/ Use aggregators & experts: Find trusted analysts who do the heavy lifting of synthesis. Look for those explaining patterns, not just events. 3/ Remember: Feeling overwhelmed is the point. When you recognize this, you regain some power. Take breaks. Process. This is a marathon. 4/ Practice going slow: Wait 48hrs before reacting to new policies. The urgent clouds the important. Initial reporting often misses context 5/ Build community: Share the cognitive load. Different people track different issues. Network intelligence beats individual overload. Remember: They want you scattered. Your focus is resistance.

If you work in diplomacy, development, or security cooperation, DOD just redefined your operating environment. The Pentagon's new Irregular Warfare instruction (DODI 3000.07) quietly dropped in September—and it's not just a military policy document. It's a signal about how the U.S. plans to compete in the gray zone where most of your work actually happens. What is Irregular Warfare? Think of it as everything that isn't tanks-on-tanks. IW is how states and non-state actors coerce or influence each other through indirect, non-attributable, or asymmetric means: proxy support, disinformation, economic pressure, cyber operations, influence campaigns. Russia, China, and Iran have been doing this for years. DOD is now institutionalizing its response. Why diplomats should care: → Mandatory interagency coordination. Expect more structured asks from your defense counterparts on influence operations and counter-disinformation. → Legitimacy is the center of gravity. The instruction explicitly aims to "erode adversary legitimacy" and "bolster partner political will." That's diplomatic work with kinetic implications. → Information environment operations are now a core IW activity. Your PD equities just got more contested—and more valuable. → Partner engagement is expanding. IW emphasizes working "by, with, and through" foreign partners—including non-traditional ones. More opportunities. More sensitivities. The bottom line: influence, not firepower, is increasingly how great power competition gets decided. That makes diplomatic tradecraft more relevant than ever—but also means staying engaged with DOD as action expands into your neighborhood.

𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐞𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐧. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝. Just a couple of days ago, the European Democracy Shield was launched. A new layer of protection. A new layer of surveillance. A new layer where 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑒𝑡𝑙𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑡𝑒. The intention is noble: protect democratic discourse. But beneath that promise sits a deeper shift: 𝐖𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐞𝐜𝐡 – 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐝. Think of the last time an intelligent assistant refused your question. Not illegal. Not harmful. Just 𝑡𝑜𝑜 𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑦. 𝑵𝒐, 𝑰 𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒉𝒆𝒍𝒑 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕. A polite refusal. A behavioural nudge. Multiply that across millions of interactions, across platforms, across languages, across entire cultures. 𝐔𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐝𝐚𝐩𝐭. 𝐔𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐤, 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐞𝐧. 𝐔𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐡, 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫. Inside organisations I see the same pattern: Leaders want acceleration. Security wants protection. AI wants certainty. And people? They learn to stop asking the questions that might confuse the system. Not because they are silenced. But because the architecture teaches them to stay close to the template. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐦, 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐞𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐬: 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐜𝐞, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐨𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. We do not silence people. We 𝑜𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑒 processes until the safest option is to stay within the lines, even when progress requires stepping outside them. 𝐈 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐟 𝐚 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐧’𝐭 𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐬, 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐬. Progress in any system - civic or corporate - depends on people who dare to step outside the expected path. 𝐖𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐤. 𝐍𝐨𝐰 𝐰𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐚𝐲. This is not future risk. It is present reality. And it leaves us with a question no regulation can answer: 𝐃𝐨 𝐰𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐮𝐬, 𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐮𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞? There is no perfect balance. But I believe one principle must stay non-negotiable: 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 – 𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬. #Leadership #DigitalGovernance #FreedomOfExpression #TechEthics 𝘝𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘩𝘦

The Geopolitics of the Next Decades: Why Central Asia Is Moving to the Center The global system is entering a structurally different era — defined not by unipolar dominance, but by sustained great-power competition, regional consolidation, economic security, and infrastructure-driven interdependence. In this environment, influence will increasingly belong not only to superpowers, but to organized regions and coordinated middle powers. Central Asia — particularly Uzbekistan — is becoming one of them Once seen as a geopolitical buffer, Central Asia is evolving into a strategic connector linking: • East Asia and Europe • Russia and South Asia • The Middle East and China As supply chains diversify, geography regains strategic weight. Transport corridors, energy routes, and digital infrastructure are instruments of structural power Since 2017, under President Shavkat Mirziyoyev, Uzbekistan has repositioned itself from transit territory to regional coordinator — driving integration and diplomatic engagement Regional Unity as a Power Multiplier The institutionalization of regular Consultative Meetings of Central Asian leaders marked a turning point. The region has: • Resolved key border issues • Elevated ties to strategic partnerships • Increased intra-regional trade significantly • Coordinated positions in global forums such as the United Nations In a multipolar world, scale matters Individually mid-sized, collectively Central Asian states form an emerging middle-power cluster capable of shaping Eurasian dynamics With prolonged rivalry expected among the United States, China, Russia and the European Union, Uzbekistan’s model of “pragmatic sovereignty” is highly adaptive. Its approach combines: • Multi-vector diplomacy • Engagement without rigid bloc alignment • Project-based cooperation over ideological positioning This strengthens resilience while reducing geopolitical exposure In the 21st century, connectivity defines influence Major East–West and North–South transport corridors, energy routes, and emerging renewable projects are repositioning Central Asia as: • A logistics hub • An energy transit and green power center • A digital bridge across Eurasia Infrastructure today is geopolitical architecture for decades ahead With global clean energy expanding, regions rich in solar, wind, and hydro resources gain structural relevance. Central Asia — especially Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan — has significant renewable potential. Energy interdependence could become as transformative in this century as hydrocarbons were in the last The coming decades will reward: • Connectivity over isolation • Flexibility over rigid alignment • Institutional coordination over reactive policy Central Asia’s evolution reflects a broader shift: middle powers organizing regionally to navigate and influence great-power competition The region is no longer a buffer It is becoming a strategic center of gravity in Eurasia

Nonprofit friends and allies - everything is a lot right now. Several trusted friends and colleagues sent this to me, and many of us at Minnesota Council of Nonprofits have found it to be useful. Breathe, drink water, take care of yourself (remember the airplane rule!) Your focus IS resistance. ::::::::::::::::::::::: According to sociologist Jennifer Walter, if you're feeling overwhelmed, that's the goal. "The flood of 200+ executive orders in Trump's first days exemplifies Naomi Klein's "shock doctrine" - using chaos and crisis to push through radical changes while people are too disoriented to effectively resist. This isn't just politics as usual - it's a strategic exploitation of cognitive limits. Media theorist McLuhan predicted this: When humans face information overload, they become passive and disengaged. The rapid-fire executive orders create a cognitive bottleneck, making it nearly impossible for citizens and media to thoroughly analyze any single policy. Agenda-setting theory explains the strategy: When multiple major policies compete for attention simultaneously, it fragments public discourse. Traditional media can't keep up with the pace, leading to superficial coverage. The result? Weakened democratic oversight and reduced public engagement. What now? ✨Set boundaries: Pick 2–3 key issues you deeply care about and focus your attention there. You can’t track everything—that’s by design. Impact comes from sustained focus, not scattered awareness. ✨Use aggregators & experts: Find trusted analysts who do the heavy lifting of synthesis. Look for those explaining patterns, not just events. ✨Remember: Feeling overwhelmed is the point. When you recognize this, you regain some power. Take breaks. Process. This is a marathon. ✨Practice going slow: Wait 48hrs before reacting to new policies. The urgent clouds the important. Initial reporting often misses context. ✨Build community: Share the cognitive load. Different people track different issues. Network intelligence beats individual overload. Remember: They want you scattered. Your focus is resistance."

As part of the #Q-Shift project with support of the interdisciplinary initiative CHANSE, Collaboration of Humanities and Social Sciences in Europe, Viktor Suter, Charles Ma, Gina P., Dr. Léa Steinacker and I conducted an in-depth study exploring how #Quantum Technology (#QT) is portrayed across media, business, and government narratives. Our goal? To understand how these #narratives shape public #perception and influence the #adoption of this groundbreaking technology. 📊 𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀: 𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗲 𝗡𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀: We analyzed 36 government documents, 165 business reports, and 2,331 media articles, revealing that QT is often framed within themes like technical innovation, global conflicts, and societal impact. 𝗧𝗲𝗰𝗵 𝗙𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱: Business narratives tend to emphasize the technical aspects and market potential of QT, often overlooking the broader societal implications. 𝗠𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮 𝗕𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲: Media coverage provides a more balanced view, but still heavily focuses on the technology’s potential without fully addressing social consequences. 𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗗𝘆𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗰𝘀: Government narratives are largely driven by national strategies and geopolitical competition, especially between the U.S. and China. 💡 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗠𝗲𝗮𝗻? The way QT is discussed today will influence how it is integrated into society tomorrow. As we advance, it's crucial to foster well-rounded narratives that not only highlight QT's potential but also consider its societal implications. This balanced approach can help build public trust and guide responsible innovation. You can currently find the full paper “An integrated view of Quantum Technology? Mapping Media, Business, and Policy Narratives“ at 🔗 https://lnkd.in/gh5XKwqk. A German version of the results can also be found in the NZZ: https://lnkd.in/eRutjcYe #QuantumTechnology #Innovation #Research #TechnologyAdoption #PublicPerception

𝐃𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐝 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐢𝐬? What happens when marketers try to understand advertising trends on social media? When journalists try to investigate the link between advertising and deliberate disinformation campaigns? When researchers attempt to audit political advertising? When regulators look for the data they need to enforce the rules? Too often, the answer is the same: 𝘋𝘢𝘵𝘢 𝘕𝘰𝘵 𝘍𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥. That's the title of the new report we've just published at the Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy, in collaboration with NetLab UFRJ at the Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro — and it's a deliberate provocation. Led by the brilliant Prof. Rose Marie Santini and Dr. Hugo Leal, the team assessed advertising data transparency across 15 major platforms in the EU, UK, and Brazil. The findings are stark. Across virtually every dimension assessed, the research reveals low transparency: incomplete or missing data, gaps in ad libraries, a lack of clarity around funding and targeting, and an absence of standards that would allow consistent comparisons between platforms. A recent piece in The Conversation UK highlights this research. https://lnkd.in/edJE2RuC Perhaps most troubling is what the research reveals about Brazil. Although the platforms operate fully within the country, transparency mechanisms there are even more limited and inconsistent than in other contexts — translating into less data availability, more gaps in ad libraries, and greater difficulty of access for independent researchers. In some cases, tools that exist in other regions are simply not available, or operate in a more restricted manner. This opacity is systemic: even where transparency mechanisms exist, they are limited, inconsistent, and unreliable. Democracy depends on accountability and accountability depends on data. Right now, that data is not being made available. Marie and Hugo have done exceptional work applying the first Social Media Data Transparency Index of its kind, and I'm proud that MCTD has supported this research. Stay tuned for the opportunity to hear them present this research as part of the Brazil Forum UK. Full report link in the comments. #ResponsibleAI #DataTransparency #PlatformAccountability #Democracy #Disinformation #DigitalPolicy #SocialMedia Cambridge Disinformation Summit

"A system doesn't work because it exists. A system works when people can act effectively within it." That's the sentence from my TED talk people have quoted back to me the most. The video is now online — and yes, I'm still a little moved seeing these fifteen minutes from the outside. But what matters to me most is the idea behind it. We talk about AI as if the big question were: should we use it or not? In public administration, that question is already settled. AI is entering the state — often by default — to read documents, process applications, support decisions, make services faster. And of course we need a state that moves faster. Anyone who has ever filled out a form for parental benefits, housing support or a business permit knows that. But speed alone is not democracy. A democratic state cannot make decisions that people don't understand. It cannot rely on probabilistic decisions made inside a black box. And it cannot replace legal reasoning. That's the danger I wanted to name. When rules become too complex for people to understand and too tangled for institutions to apply, AI can go two ways: it can deepen the black box, or it can help us open it. For the second path, AI needs something to work with that is not just text, as our laws are still written today. It needs the structure behind the law — the legal logic that lawyers reconstruct in their heads every day, but that our systems still rarely make visible. That hidden structure is what we make visible with #Rulemapping. And once legal logic is readable for people and usable for machines, AI doesn't have to replace the rule of law. It can work within it: answering specific factual questions inside a clear legal framework, explaining outcomes in language people actually understand, even simulating the effects of a law before it's passed — as long as the decision itself stays traceable. Because democracy doesn't only depend on having rules. It depends on whether people can act effectively within them. Thank you again to TEDxBerlin, Stephan Balzer and the whole team, for giving this idea a stage. I'd love to hear what you think. https://lnkd.in/dmqfD_CH