The Contested Digital Frontier: A Research Article on the Cyber-Political Landscape of Developing Countries

Vladimir Tsakanyan

Abstract

The digital revolution presents a profound and often contradictory force in the political development of the Global South. This report analyzes the multifaceted cyber-political landscape, arguing that digital technologies function as a double-edged sword, simultaneously offering unprecedented opportunities for democratic advancement and new, sophisticated tools for authoritarian control. Moving beyond a simple narrative of progress, this study examines four key dimensions: the persistent digital divide as a foundation of inequality; the dual-use of technology for both e-government and digital repression; the emergence of a digitally-empowered civil society juxtaposed against rising cyber threats; and the complex influence of external state and non-state actors. Drawing on a range of primary and secondary sources, this analysis highlights the central paradox of the digital age: that the same platforms enabling grassroots mobilization can also be weaponized for surveillance and disinformation, and the same infrastructure promoting economic growth can be exploited for geopolitical advantage. The report concludes that navigating this contested frontier requires a nuanced, context-specific approach that prioritizes human rights, digital literacy, and equitable access to information.

1. Introduction: Mapping the Cyber-Political Terrain

The contemporary global political stage is increasingly defined by the integration of digital technologies, a phenomenon that has profoundly reshaped power dynamics, governance, and societal engagement. This report is a detailed examination of this evolution, focusing specifically on the cyber-political landscape of developing countries. The term “cyber-political” is employed here to describe the intricate interplay between digital technologies and political processes, encompassing a wide range of activities from the use of social media for political mobilization to the implementation of national digital identity systems and state-sponsored cyber espionage.¹ A comprehensive understanding of this landscape requires a perspective that moves beyond a Eurocentric lens, recognizing that “each region experiences this transformation differently”.⁵

A central tenet of this analysis is the fundamental paradox that defines the digital transformation of the Global South. While digital technologies hold immense promise for fostering transparent, efficient governance and empowering citizens to participate in the political process ⁴, they simultaneously provide new and sophisticated tools for state control, censorship, and the erosion of civil liberties.⁹ This report will explore this core tension across four key dimensions: the digital divide, digital governance, cyber threats, and the influence of external actors. By examining this contradictory nature, the study aims to provide a more nuanced understanding of the challenges and opportunities that lie at the contested digital frontier.

2. The Digital Divide: A Foundation of Inequality

The digital divide is not merely a superficial gap in access to technology but a foundational precondition that shapes and amplifies existing political and social inequalities within developing countries. This division is multi-layered, extending beyond simple connectivity to encompass disparities in infrastructure, skills, and political representation. The uneven distribution of digital resources creates a cycle of disadvantage that reinforces, rather than ameliorates, socioeconomic disparities.

2.1 Infrastructure and Access Barriers

The most visible manifestation of the digital divide is the stark inequality in foundational infrastructure. In least developed countries, internet penetration stands at a mere 27% of the population, a figure that is less than half the global average of 66%.¹² This gap is rooted in more than just the cost of devices; it is a direct reflection of a deeper, systemic lack of essential infrastructure. In countries such as Chad and South Sudan, only 8% and 7% of the population, respectively, have access to electricity, a prerequisite for sustained digital engagement.¹³ Across sub-Saharan Africa, only one-quarter of the population has access to reliable internet, highlighting the fragility of existing networks.¹⁴

Furthermore, developing countries are often trapped in a cycle of technological obsolescence. While developed nations are moving towards advanced 5G networks, many low-income countries remain dependent on older 2G and 3G networks. This is due to a confluence of factors, including the exorbitant costs of building new infrastructure, inconsistent electricity supply, and restrictive regulatory frameworks.¹² The analysis indicates that this is not a new problem but rather a persistent gap in a country’s foundational economic and governance landscape, previously seen in the lack of mainline telephone services, which has now simply been re-manifested in digital terms.¹⁵ This suggests that providing devices alone is an insufficient strategy; a successful approach to bridging the digital divide must address these underlying issues of energy, economic policy, and institutional development.

2.2 Political Consequences of Digital Inequality

The digital divide’s political implications are profound and actively shape the power dynamics within a society. Unequal digital access and skills create disparities in how people consume political information and participate in civic life.¹⁶ This leads to an uneven distribution of political voice, where policymakers are primarily influenced by the “digitally active groups,” leading to policies that may underrepresent the needs and preferences of marginalized populations.¹⁶

This disparity is particularly evident in the realm of e-government services, where unequal access and low digital literacy can result in an exclusionary system.¹⁷ For example, while online tax filing in Chile or digital identity systems in Uruguay hold great promise for efficiency, they can inadvertently exacerbate existing inequalities if not designed with inclusivity in mind.¹⁷ The digital divide therefore acts as an active mechanism of social and political stratification, creating a “cycle of disadvantage” that compounds existing inequalities in education, employment, and civic participation.¹³ In this sense, the divide is not a passive gap but a dynamic force that reinforces the political power of a digitally-connected minority. The following table provides a clear breakdown of the multi-layered nature of this challenge.

Layer of Divide	Manifestation in Developing Countries	Source Snippets
Infrastructure	Reliance on 2G/3G networks; high cost of 5G deployment	12
Access	Low internet and electricity penetration (e.g., 7% in South Sudan)	13
Skills	Low digital literacy rates; lack of technical know-how	14
Political Representation	Policies skewed towards digitally active groups	16
Civic Engagement	Disparities in e-participation and access to public services	16

3. Digital Governance: From E-Government to Digital Repression

Digital technologies, in the hands of governments, function as a paradoxical instrument. They possess the capacity to usher in an era of transparent and efficient “good governance” but are equally capable of being repurposed for “digital authoritarianism,” a sophisticated form of control and repression.

3.1 The Promise of Digital Governance

The concept of digital governance is championed by international bodies like the World Bank and the UN as a strategic driver for a more effective public sector.⁷ E-government initiatives aim to streamline services, improve transparency, and foster greater citizen engagement.⁶ Examples of successful implementation include Chile and Brazil’s online tax filing systems, Indonesia’s LAPOR! transparency initiative, and Uruguay’s digital identity systems.⁶ The McKinsey report on digital IDs suggests that these programs have the potential to boost a country’s GDP by 3 to 13% by 2030, a powerful incentive for adoption.²¹

However, the analysis of these initiatives reveals a critical dependency: their success is not guaranteed by the technology itself but by the underlying political will, institutional capacity, and public trust. While the potential is clear, the failure rate of e-government projects, particularly in developing countries, is significant.¹⁹ The challenges are not technological but systemic, rooted in “limited infrastructure, lack of institutional capacity, and inadequate funding”.¹⁷ The cautionary tale of Jamaica, where a lack of engagement with non-governmental stakeholders led to widespread public distrust and slowed adoption, demonstrates that without democratic principles and a genuine commitment to public welfare, technology alone cannot solve governance problems.²¹ True digital governance, therefore, requires a fundamental shift in political culture and a deliberate effort to build trust, not just a simple adoption of new systems.

3.2 The Reality of Digital Authoritarianism

The counter-narrative to digital governance is the rising tide of digital authoritarianism. The same tools praised for their efficiency are being repurposed by governments to suppress dissent and control information. This is often justified by a government’s need to prevent “misinformation” or maintain “public order”.⁶ For instance, authorities in Cambodia and Myanmar have used “fake news” as a pretext to restrict free expression.⁶ Sri Lanka’s two-day social media shutdown during communal riots in 2018 and Iran’s nine-day total internet shutdown in 2019 to stifle protests are clear examples of this tactic.⁹

A particularly alarming trend is the adoption and export of sophisticated surveillance technology. China’s “Great Firewall” serves as a model of comprehensive internet censorship and surveillance.²³ More critically, Beijing is actively propagating this model abroad, with Chinese companies like Huawei providing mass surveillance technology under “Safe City” and “Smart City” programs in approximately 60 countries by 2019.¹¹ This suggests that digital repression is not a series of isolated incidents but a global, coordinated trend where authoritarian regimes are learning from and supporting one another.²⁴ The rise of digital authoritarianism represents a significant counter-narrative to the idea of a free and open internet, demonstrating that technology is a neutral tool whose political impact is determined by the intentions of those who wield it. The following table illustrates this dual-use framework of digital governance.

Positive Applications	Goals	Negative Applications	Stated Justifications
E-Government services (online taxes, public platforms)	Efficiency, transparency, and citizen engagement	Internet shutdowns, throttling, and content censorship	“Fighting fake news” and national security
Digital ID systems	Service delivery, financial inclusion	Mass surveillance and biometric tracking	Public safety, crime prevention
Data collection for public services	Evidence-based policymaking, service improvement	Use for digital repression and political control	Public order, social stability

4. The Cyber Threat Nexus: Crime, Vulnerability, and Geopolitics

The rapid digital transformation of developing nations has been accompanied by a surge in cyber threats, exposing a significant “cyber inequity gap” that leaves them particularly vulnerable. This vulnerability stems from a combination of common criminal activity, a lack of institutional capacity, and the complexities of international geopolitical competition.

4.1 The Landscape of Cyber Threats

Cybercrime is an increasingly prominent issue in the Global South. According to an INTERPOL report, cyber-related offenses account for over 30% of all reported crimes in Western and Eastern Africa.²⁵ The most frequently reported threats include online scams, ransomware, business email compromise, and digital sextortion.²⁵ The public sector is disproportionately affected by this rise, with 38% of public organizations reporting insufficient cyber resilience, a stark contrast to the 10% seen in large private-sector organizations.²⁷

This surge in crime is not coincidental; it is a direct consequence of a mismatch between the pace of technological adoption and the lagging development of institutional and human capacity. Developing countries often “lack the institutional capacity and technical know-how to effectively protect the data” that fuels their digital transformation.²⁸ The INTERPOL report further confirms this, noting that 90% of African countries require “significant improvement” in their law enforcement and prosecution capacities to combat these threats.²⁵ This creates a high-risk environment where a burgeoning digital economy is undermined by profound institutional and technical weaknesses, a phenomenon described as the “cyber inequity gap”.²⁷

4.2 The Challenge of International Cooperation

Addressing these transnational cyber threats requires an unprecedented level of international coordination.¹ However, effective cooperation is hindered by a fundamental trust deficit and a clash of priorities among nations. While multilateral organizations like the United Nations, Organization of American States, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations are focusing on cyber issues, non-democratic countries are simultaneously using these same forums to “advance their own very different views of cyberspace”.³⁰

This struggle for influence is rooted in systemic challenges, including a general “lack of transparency” and “different priorities” among countries.¹ The Interpol report highlights this institutional friction, with 86% of African countries stating that their international cooperation capacity needs improvement due to “slow, formal processes, a lack of operational networks, and limited access to platforms and foreign-hosted data”.²⁵ These systemic failures mean that developing nations are often caught in the middle of a larger geopolitical struggle for control over the digital domain, unable to fully benefit from capacity-building initiatives that are themselves products of a deeply divided global cyber landscape.

5. The Rise of the Digital Citizen: Online Activism and Civic Space

Digital platforms have profoundly altered the landscape of political participation in the Global South, serving as a powerful catalyst for social mobilization and civic engagement. However, this rise of the digital citizen is not without its limitations and risks, as the same tools of empowerment can also introduce new forms of inequality and political repression.

5.1 Digital Platforms as a Catalyst for Mobilization

Social media has emerged as “an emerging political trend” in countries with high internet engagement, such as Brazil.³¹ These platforms have effectively lowered the barriers to political participation, enabling previously marginalized or disengaged groups to become “digital activists”.² Digital tools facilitate “faster and more effective communication” and coordination, making it possible for individuals to engage in political activities more inclusively than ever before.³¹

Case studies from across the Global South provide compelling evidence of this shift. The #EndSARS movement in Nigeria and the #FeesMustFall movement in South Africa are prime examples of how social media can be used to organize mass protests, document abuses, and gain international attention.³³ In a more dramatic political shift, the #GambiaHasDecided movement leveraged online organization and grassroots efforts to pressure a long-time dictator to step down, transforming the country’s political landscape.³⁴ These movements demonstrate that digital platforms can be efficient tools for rapid and mass political mobilization, particularly in repressive contexts, by allowing for the creation of new narratives and the dissemination of information without the need for traditional, rigid organizational structures.²

5.2 The Limitations and Perils of Digital Activism

Despite their power, digital platforms are not a panacea for political change and can introduce new forms of inequality and risk. A primary critique is that online activism can give “disproportionate representation to those with greater access or technological ability,” effectively excluding marginalized groups who are on the wrong side of the digital divide.¹⁶ This uneven participation reinforces existing socioeconomic inequalities.

Furthermore, social media platforms often function as “echo chambers,” amplifying existing political divisions and creating “filter bubbles” that reinforce polarization.¹⁶ This means that while digital tools can unite a movement, they can also fragment public discourse and exacerbate political divisions. Most critically, the rise of digital activism has been met with a counter-response from states. Governments now use new forms of “digital repression,” including surveillance, arrests, and harassment of online activists.³⁵ The same tools that empower citizens to organize can also be used by the state to monitor and punish them, creating a new, digitally-mediated form of political control.

6. External Actors and Digital Sovereignty

The cyber-political landscape of developing countries is not an isolated phenomenon but a new theater for geopolitical competition, where foreign governments and multinational corporations vie for influence, shaping the direction of digital transformation and challenging the concept of digital sovereignty.

6.1 The Geopolitical Competition for Influence

The struggle for influence is most clearly seen in the rise of information warfare. A report on disinformation in West Africa identified a “marked increase in the number of publicly identified disinformation campaigns,” with at least 16 linked to Russia since 2014.³⁶ These campaigns strategically position Russia as a “viable alternative to Western aid” and have been linked to a concurrent surge in anti-France and pro-Russia sentiments in the region.³⁶ The aim is not merely to spread falsehoods but to shape public opinion and align developing countries with a particular geopolitical bloc.

Similarly, the export of technology by major powers is a key instrument of foreign influence. China, in particular, has been actively marketing and exporting its mass surveillance technology to over 60 countries, a strategic move to propagate its model of digital control abroad.¹¹ This creates a complex environment where developing countries must navigate the power struggles of external actors while trying to chart their own, independent digital futures.¹⁴ The outcome of these geopolitical battles, debated in international forums, will have a major impact on the future of the internet and digital governance for years to come.³⁰

6.2 The Role of Multinational Tech Corporations

Multinational corporations (MNCs) present another significant challenge to digital sovereignty. While they are credited with bringing jobs, technology, and economic growth to developing nations, they are also accused of exerting “too much political influence”.³⁷ This dynamic has given rise to a new form of “digital colonialism,” where developing countries risk being trapped in a cycle of dependence on foreign AI models and digital infrastructure.¹⁴

The dominance of a few powerful companies, often based in the West, allows them to set de-facto standards and control access to information and data.³⁷ For example, Facebook’s “Free Basics” service, which zero-rates data for its platforms, provides a powerful illustration of this dynamic.³⁶ It offers internet access but simultaneously entrenches the platform’s market dominance, shaping the information environment and creating an undeniable dependency. The issue of who controls core internet infrastructure, such as the Domain Name System, is therefore not a technical one but a fundamental question of national sovereignty and economic power in the digital age.³

7. The Future of the Cyber Political Landscape

The future of the cyber-political landscape in the Global South will be largely defined by how nations grapple with the challenges and opportunities presented by emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, and how they navigate the path toward inclusive digital sovereignty.

7.1 The AI Paradox: Opportunity and Risk

Artificial intelligence (AI) represents a new, high-stakes battleground. On one hand, AI has the potential to significantly enhance public services and boost a country’s GDP.¹⁷ AI models can automate routine tasks and improve decision-making, offering a pathway to greater efficiency. However, the development of frontier AI models requires immense capital, computing capabilities, and foundational digital infrastructure, resources that are largely concentrated in a handful of technologically advanced economies.¹⁴ This reality presents a stark choice for many developing countries: adopt expensive, foreign-developed models or fall behind.

The risks of adoption are significant. The use of AI without a robust human rights framework can lead to “algorithmic biases” and enable mass surveillance, posing a direct threat to civil liberties and democratic processes.³⁸ The dilemma is clear: the public sector urgently needs the expertise that the private sector holds, but struggles to establish the connections needed to ensure responsible development.⁴⁰ The AI revolution will either widen or narrow the existing digital divide ⁴⁰, and the future will be defined by whether developing nations can “nurture innovation ecosystems” and develop their own context-specific approaches to this transformative technology.¹²

7.2 A Path Towards Inclusive Digital Sovereignty

The path toward inclusive digital sovereignty requires a multi-pronged, multi-stakeholder strategy that goes beyond simple technological adoption. A critical first step is fostering greater international and regional cooperation.³⁰ Experts and organizations argue that global rules are often not a good fit for developing nations and suggest that countries should chart their own paths toward cooperation, perhaps starting with regional coalitions or agreements on less contentious topics.⁴¹

International aid organizations, like the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), are already working to address these challenges. They are investing in digital infrastructure, such as fiber optic cables in Mauritania ⁴², and supporting the development of inclusive policies.¹⁷ The emphasis is on a “user-centered design” approach to digital transformation and the implementation of human rights impact assessments to ensure that technology serves the people, not just the state or corporate interests.³⁸ Ultimately, true digital sovereignty is not about isolation but about agency: the ability of a country to shape technology to fit its unique needs and values while protecting its citizens from both internal and external threats.

8. Conclusion: The Contested Digital Future

The cyber-political landscape of developing countries is a dynamic and complex arena defined by a fundamental paradox. Digital technologies are a double-edged sword, offering immense potential for progress while simultaneously creating new avenues for control and vulnerability. This report has demonstrated that the persistent digital divide is not merely a technical problem but a foundational inequality that shapes all other cyber-political dynamics. The tools of digital governance, while promising efficiency and transparency, are susceptible to being repurposed for digital repression, and the digital citizen’s newfound voice is often met with sophisticated forms of state control. Furthermore, the landscape is a new theater for geopolitical competition and corporate influence, where major powers and multinational firms vie for control over infrastructure and data, posing a significant challenge to national sovereignty.

The path forward requires a nuanced and human-centric approach. As emerging technologies like AI accelerate the pace of change, developing countries must prioritize strategies that build institutional capacity, foster digital literacy, and ensure that technology is tailored to local contexts and governed by a commitment to human rights. The struggle for a just and equitable digital future is not a technical problem to be solved, but a fundamental political challenge to be navigated with foresight, collaboration, and a unwavering focus on the welfare of the people.

Works cited

1. The Impact of Cybersecurity on Global Politics – Number Analytics, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/impact-of-cybersecurity-on-global-politics
2. Digital Activism and Political Change: Challenges of Social Media’s Impact on Political Development – UI Scholars Hub, accessed August 15, 2025, https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1107&context=meis
3. What is Cyber Diplomacy?, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.cyber-diplomacy-toolbox.com/Cyber_Diplomacy.html
4. The Role of Technology and Innovation in Shaping Democratic Capitalist Economies, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.law.georgetown.edu/denny-center/blog/the-role-of-technology/
5. Digital and the Global South – Communication, Culture …, accessed August 15, 2025, https://cct.georgetown.edu/announcements/ctt-professor-mohamed-zayani-publishes-new-book-on-the-digital-and-the-global-south/
6. Digital Sociocracy: Navigating Governance Challenges in Southeast …, accessed August 15, 2025, https://journal.iapa.or.id/pgr/article/download/1220/596
7. Digital government – OECD, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/digital-government.html
8. Digital governance | United Nations Development Programme, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.undp.org/governance/digital-governance
9. Article: Internet Shutdowns: The Rising Tactic of Authoritarian Control, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.freiheit.org/global-innovation-hub-taipei/internet-shutdowns-rising-tactic-authoritarian-control
10. Internet Shutdowns Shutting Down Democracy – V-Dem, accessed August 15, 2025, https://v-dem.net/media/publications/PB_40.pdf
11. ) Digital Repression Growing Globally, Threatening … – DNI.gov, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/NIC-Declassified-Assessment-Digital-Repression-Growing-April2023.pdf
12. Widening Digital Gap between Developed, Developing States Threatening to Exclude World’s Poorest from Next Industrial Revolution, Speakers Tell Second Committee | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases, accessed August 15, 2025, https://press.un.org/en/2023/gaef3587.doc.htm
13. Digital Divide in Developing Countries: Why We Need to Close the Gap, accessed August 15, 2025, https://ctu.ieee.org/blog/2023/01/23/digital-divide-in-developing-countries-why-we-need-to-close-the-gap/
14. An Open Door: AI Innovation in the Global South amid Geostrategic Competition – CSIS, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/open-door-ai-innovation-global-south-amid-geostrategic-competition
15. Publication: Policy Reform, Economic Growth, and the Digital Divide : An Econometric Analysis – World Bank Open Knowledge Repository, accessed August 15, 2025, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/0fc9d92e-7d1f-5136-9fc5-a1e373239e0b
16. Digital divide and its political implications | Media and Politics Class Notes – Fiveable, accessed August 15, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/media-politics/unit-13/digital-divide-political-implications/study-guide/ZKTlAffep9yifpi7
17. Digital Governance in Latin America – Number Analytics, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/digital-governance-latin-america
18. A Critical Analysis of Electronic Governance Regime in Developing Countries, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v13i10/SR241013202144.pdf
19. An e-Government Implementation Framework: A Developing Country Case Study – PMC, accessed August 15, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7134271/
20. National digital IDs in the age of artificial intelligence, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/six-analytic-blog/2025/08/national-digital-ids-in-the-age-of-artificial-intelligence/
21. How to achieve universal access to digital IDs – Brookings Institution, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/principles-for-designing-reliable-digital-id-systems/
22. Digital identification: A key to inclusive growth – McKinsey, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/digital-identification-a-key-to-inclusive-growth
23. The Rise of Digital Authoritarianism | Freedom House, accessed August 15, 2025, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2018/rise-digital-authoritarianism
24. Authoritarian Practices in the Digital Age | Introduction – International Journal of Communication, accessed August 15, 2025, https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/8536/2458
25. New INTERPOL report warns of sharp rise in cybercrime in Africa, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.interpol.int/News-and-Events/News/2025/New-INTERPOL-report-warns-of-sharp-rise-in-cybercrime-in-Africa
26. INTERPOL AFRICA CYBERTHREAT ASSESSMENT REPORT 2025, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.interpol.int/en/content/download/23094/file/Cybercrime_Africa%20Cyberthreat%20Assessment%20Report_Design_FINAL.pdf
27. Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2025 – World Economic Forum, accessed August 15, 2025, https://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Cybersecurity_Outlook_2025.pdf
28. ​​Enhancing Cyber Resilience in Developing Countries​ – World Bank, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2025/01/29/-enhancing-cyber-resilience-in-developing-countries
29. The growing complexity of global cybersecurity: Moving from challenges to action, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/01/growing-complexity-global-cybersecurity-from-challenges-action/
30. Diplomacy in Cyberspace – American Foreign Service Association, accessed August 15, 2025, https://afsa.org/diplomacy-cyberspace
31. mapping the stream of digital activism: a global social movement, accessed August 15, 2025, https://cfds.fisipol.ugm.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/sites/1423/2021/01/23-CfDS-Case-Study-Mapping-The-Stream-of-Digital-Activism-A-Global-Social-Movement.pdf
32. Internet activism – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_activism
33. Rethinking Global South through Digital Lens – Number Analytics, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/rethinking-global-south-digital-lens
34. Legislative Protection and Digital and Civic Spaces in Africa …, accessed August 15, 2025, https://paradigmhq.org/legislative-protection-and-digital-and-civic-spaces-in-africa/
35. The digital repression of social movements, protest, and activism: A synthetic review – PMC, accessed August 15, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10953837/
36. The disinformation landscape in West Africa and beyond – Atlantic …, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/disinformation-west-africa/
37. Politics of the Multinational Firm | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/business-and-management/politics-multinational-firm
38. Latin American and Caribbean Internet Governance Forum …, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.un.org/digital-emerging-technologies/sites/www.un.org.techenvoy/files/GDC-submission_LACIGF.pdf
39. Navigating the Risks and Rewards of Digital ID Systems – Open Government Partnership, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/stories/navigating-the-risks-and-rewards-of-digital-id-systems/
40. Uniting the Global South: An AI Future of Inclusive Digital Sovereignty by Tianze Zhang, accessed August 15, 2025, https://aifod.org/uniting-the-global-south-an-ai-future-of-inclusive-digital-sovereignty-by-tianze-zhang/
41. Digital diplomacy | Pathways for Prosperity, accessed August 15, 2025, https://pathwayscommission.bsg.ox.ac.uk/digital-diplomacy/
42. Digital Transformation – World Bank, accessed August 15, 2025, https://ida.worldbank.org/en/focus-areas/digitalization
43. UNDP and the World Bank advance digital transformation in the Global South, accessed August 15, 2025, https://dig.watch/updates/undp-and-the-world-bank-advance-digital-transformation-in-the-global-south