Surveillance, democracy, and the erosion of digital rights in the Global South

The interplay between technology and governance has produced new forms of power and control in the twenty-first century. In democratic societies, digital technologies are expected to facilitate transparency, accountability, and freedom of expression. Yet, an alarming trend has emerged across nations of the Global South, where increasing state surveillance and draconian legislation are systematically eroding democratic values, stifling free speech, and jeopardising the rights of citizens. Far from ensuring security, many of these laws have become tools in the hands of authoritarian-leaning governments seeking to consolidate power.

Surveillance, once confined largely to intelligence and law enforcement, has today penetrated everyday life, exerting a profound influence on public discourse. Bangladesh provides a salient example, with its Digital Security Act (DSA) introduced in 2018. Ostensibly enacted to tackle misinformation and threats to national security, the DSA quickly drew criticism for its overly broad, vaguely defined provisions which criminalised a wide range of online expressions. In practice, the DSA became the state's "preferred weapon" for silencing critics, journalists, and opposition activists. Despite its eventual repeal, the 2023 Cyber Security Act, intended as a replacement, largely preserved the repressive aspects of its predecessor. Amnesty International categorically labelled this reform as mere "tokenism," pointing out that Bangladesh remains firmly non-compliant with international human rights standards, including those set by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

This troubling reality is not isolated to Bangladesh. Similar legal and political dynamics are observable across other nations of the Global South. India's extensive surveillance infrastructure provides another illustrative case. Here, the legal framework remains anchored in outdated and broad-based colonial statutes, such as the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885, alongside more recent laws like the Information Technology Act 2000. Together, these laws grant authorities expansive powers to intercept communications, ostensibly in the interests of public safety or national security. However, the lack of independent judicial oversight and clear definitions for critical terms like "public emergency" and "national security" have opened the door to widespread abuses. Revelations of surveillance using sophisticated spyware like Pegasus against journalists, lawyers, and opposition figures underscore the Indian state's increasing authoritarian turn in digital governance.

Read more

The colonial legacy in our digital infrastructure

The consequences of such surveillance regimes can be chilling, where the perceived threat of surveillance silences dissent and discourages civic engagement. In Bangladesh, widespread fear of punitive measures under the DSA has compelled journalists, activists, and even ordinary citizens to practice self-censorship. Likewise, in India, the Pegasus spyware revelations instilled widespread anxiety, causing activists and opposition figures to retreat from openly critical stances. The Editors' Council of Bangladesh lamented that such laws had turned fears of repression into a "nightmare-reality," undermining essential democratic debate and discourse. This self-censorship represents not merely the loss of individual freedoms but a fundamental weakening of democratic processes and institutions.

The relationship between surveillance and democratic backsliding warrants deeper consideration. Surveillance is seldom neutral; it is frequently deployed as a political strategy by governments experiencing democratic erosion. Uganda, under President Yoweri Museveni, provides a textbook example. The Regulation of Interception of Communications Act (2010) established a centralised monitoring system granting broad discretion to security agencies to intercept communications. This legal cover has permitted widespread state-sponsored surveillance targeting political opponents, journalists, and civil society. Uganda's inclusion in the notorious Pegasus spyware scandal further illustrates how surveillance technologies initially sold as anti-terrorist tools can easily become instruments of domestic repression. Similarly, Myanmar's military junta, following the February 2021 coup, rapidly enacted draconian cyber laws designed explicitly to facilitate authoritarian consolidation, mandating extensive user data retention and criminalising digital anonymity through bans on Virtual Private Networks (VPNs). The Myanmar case demonstrates surveillance as both a method and a symptom of democratic collapse.

Even countries that formally uphold democratic values face threats from unchecked surveillance. Brazil's experience under President Jair Bolsonaro (2019–2022) highlights how democratic institutions can become vulnerable to the authoritarian use of digital surveillance. Bolsonaro's government secretly sought access to Pegasus spyware, aiming to establish a clandestine, extrajudicial surveillance capability that would have enabled monitoring of political adversaries. Although the attempt was thwarted by judicial and legislative resistance, the incident underscores surveillance as a potent and tempting tool for authoritarian impulses even in formally democratic contexts.

These examples compel reflection on the delicate balance between security and individual privacy. Governments frequently justify expansive surveillance powers by citing legitimate security threats, from terrorism to organised crime. Indeed, states have an obligation to protect their citizens. Yet, without stringent oversight and accountability mechanisms, security imperatives can quickly devolve into authoritarian control. The consistent lack of judicial oversight in many surveillance frameworks across the Global South is alarming. Surveillance operations frequently proceed without judicial warrants, instead relying on executive authorisation, which inherently lacks impartiality. Such arrangements violate established human rights principles of necessity and proportionality as prescribed by international conventions, notably the ICCPR.

To counteract these trends, substantive reforms are imperative. Policymakers and civil society must advocate for stringent oversight mechanisms, transparency requirements, and independent judicial scrutiny in surveillance practices. Frameworks such as the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), emphasising accountability and citizens' rights, offer viable models for countries in the Global South. Brazil's Marco Civil da Internet and its General Data Protection Law (LGPD), inspired by Europe's GDPR, illustrate that adopting robust protections is possible even within developing contexts. Yet, these laws alone are insufficient unless backed by strong democratic institutions capable of resisting executive overreach.

Ultimately, safeguarding democracy in the digital age demands collective vigilance. Citizens, policymakers, academics, and civil society organisations must recognise surveillance not merely as a technical issue but as a profoundly political one with real-world consequences for democracy, human rights, and civic life. In the Global South, the misuse of digital surveillance technologies under ill-defined legal frameworks poses one of the most significant contemporary threats to democratic stability. Only by confronting and curtailing the unchecked use of surveillance powers, through both legal reform and societal resistance, can we preserve digital freedoms and democratic integrity for generations to come.

Zarif Faiaz is a journalist at The Daily Star and a researcher at Tech Global Institute.