Photo: sirylok/Adobe Stock
Welcome to the August 2026 edition of the Human Rights Initiative Director’s Note. I’m Andrew Friedman, director and senior fellow of the Human Rights Initiative (HRI) at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and I produce this outlet monthly to talk through human rights and democracy issues that have been occupying significant space in my mind, highlight some of what we’ve been doing at HRI, and present a few articles, books, podcasts, and videos that have particularly struck me over the last few weeks.
There’s a lot to love about democracy. Development outcomes across the board are better in the medium and long term in democracies. People live longer and fewer infants die. Economic growth is stronger. People are more secure. On the moral side of things, I’ve never heard a compelling argument for why people shouldn’t have a say in the decisions that most impact their lives, or at very least in the people who make those decisions. But none of those things are my personal favorite. My personal favorite is democracy’s tendency towards self-correction. A lot can go wrong in a country. In my own country, a quote often attributed to Winston Churchill (though not verified) is that “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.”
This quip, in perfect Churchill style whether or not he said it, tells an important truth about democracy. Democracy, as a system, lets a populace hold their officials accountable for decisions they make and, when they disagree with those decisions, find people to make better ones. Looking at it this way, elections are a part of democracy, but far from its whole. Its whole is one long and ongoing process to just try to do better. They serve more as a moment-in-time temperature check of the health of a country’s democracy, its broader democratic trajectory, and its ability to self-correct than the be-all end-all.
Why is this front of mind?
Earlier this month, Zambia held its Presidential election, in which Hakainde Hichilema was re-elected with more than 60 percent of the vote. HH (as he is known) was first elected in 2021, in large part as a rejection of the authoritarian tendencies of his predecessor, Edgar Lungu. There are two stories that can be told about the intervening five years and this election.
First, HH’s first win five years ago saw him sweep into power with immense optimism about his ability to reverse the repression of the country’s former leader and guide Zambia through difficult economic terrain, in particular from the country’s youth, a significant part of the population in a country where the median age is under 19. By convincing more than 60 percent of the electorate to vote for him, he seems to have met the expectations of the electorate in an election described by some observers as a referendum on the economy, guiding the country through a major debt restructuring and restoring relationships with international lenders.
And second, President Hichilema was elected in 2021 as a rejection of Lungu’s repression and authoritarianism, but the last five years have seen no shortage of these tactics. The government brought back de factocriminal defamation laws and passed a public gatherings bill that have collectively raised concerns about shrinking civic space. Though he received more than 60 percent of the vote, while votes were being counted, a number of opposition politicians were arrested in a violent scene at an opposition leader’s home and there have been significant accusations of electoral irregularities.
Both of these narratives are true, making it all the clearer that elections cannot be viewed in isolation, but rather must be seen as part of the wider democratic trajectory of a country.
Time will tell what the ultimate determination is concerning the election itself. Opposition leader Brian Mundubile planned take the election result to court, and claims that he is the rightful winner. However, when Mundubile attempted to file on the final day challenges were possible, Zambia’s courts were closed “for security reasons.” Further reporting from the European Union’s Electoral Observation Mission as well as multiple analysts have highlighted deep flaws in the process. It could be that these irregularities did not change the outcome. It also could be that they are overstated by an opposition candidate who is surprised by his loss. I have no idea, and frankly I would not presume to know or opine on who is better for the people of Zambia.
The reason this election caused me to wax philosophical about the value of democracy is not about who wins; it’s about the process. Elections like this serve as a temperature check for the health of a democratic trajectory. Much has been
While the outcome will ultimately make the headlines, and the next five years of Zambian leadership will have substantial impacts on the lives of everyday Zambians, the election proves a problematic temperature check for the country’s democratic trajectory. It could be that Zambians want five more years of HH, or it could be that the irregularities did impact the election and the country attempted to elect Brian Mundubile. By limiting fundamental freedoms and suppressing dissent, the environment limits democracy’s ability to self-correct, whatever that correction may look like to the people of Zambia.
Photo: GIANLUIGI GUERCIA / AFP via Getty Images
New Initiative – Technology and human rights has always been a central pillar of the work of HRI. While there have been a number of different areas of the work, the majority of it has been in the convening space, bringing together technology companies, civil society, and government actors, to make sure that the conversation around technology is grounded in real-world experience in the human rights sphere. This work continues, but we have also begun research looking at best- and worst-case scenarios connected to new technologies and human rights. The first such piece was focused on low earth orbit satellite internet, and a few more will be coming out in the coming weeks and months on various types of AI, spyware, and other strategic technologies. The idea behind the initiative is to understand the capacity for change with technology and figure out how to best chart a path towards the best-case scenario.
Sudan – I don’t normally use this section to highlight individual written pieces, but I'm going to make an exception for a piece I wrote with Brad Brooks-Rubin, who serves as a non-resident Senior Associate both with HRI and with the Economics Program at CSIS. The reason I find this piece particularly important is it explores a new avenue to try to end the horrific bloodshed in Sudan. Sudan is often referred to as the world’s most forgotten humanitarian crisis, but that’s not quite right. Denise Brown, the UN Humanitarian Coordinator in the country, got it right when she called it the world’s most “abandoned crisis.”
Authoritarians Keep Telling Us What They Fear. We Should Listen – Scott Fisher, Graig Klein, Juris Pupcenoks, and Juste Codjo – Often in the human rights world it’s easy to know whether what you’re doing is right based on who celebrates it. These outlets have been beacons for some of history’s greatest advocates for democracy, and their demise has been celebrated by some of the authoritarian world’s loudest voices. There is no greater tool in an authoritarian playbook than controlling the flow of information. This made traditional U.S. efforts such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and other channels where factual and verifiable information is beamed into places where such information is in short supply invaluable. This piece delves into what they’ve done, why it matters, and how this authoritarian vulnerability can be exploited in the future.
Say Nothing – Patrick Radden Keefe and Hulu – This is a bit of a sneaky inclusion because it’s multiple additions in one. Say Nothing by Patrick Radden Keefe is one of the best books I’ve read in the last decade. It turned me into a zealot for his writing, and even his extremely fun podcast Wind of Change. I recommend them all. I’m currently watching the Hulu miniseries based on the book, and it is incredible. It centers the everyday stories of people trying to breathe freer air or even just eke out a living during the Troubles. It’s been a recurring theme of my Director’s Notes, but in those situations of chaos, every single decision is multifaceted: what street to take to the grocery store, whether you can help a neighbor whose car broke down without it being seen as political, what sports team you root for. For many of us, these are not even decisions; more a part of everyday autopilot. In conflict or totalitarian spaces, they can mean life or death. It also highlights the importance of creating a collective memory when so much has been hidden. Read it, watch it, enjoy it.
AI and Democracy: The right to resist optimization – Audrey Tang – At the heart of the Taiwan cyber ambassador’s thoughtful essay is a question: Looking into the future, is technology for humans or are humans for technology? That question (though she puts it far more eloquently) would’ve struck me as the tag line of a Blade Runner-esque sci-fi movie only a few years ago, but Ambassador Tang makes a thoughtful case that the current discussion of AI tools in particular is leading to a world where humans are aligning themselves to tech and lionizing optimization, rather than aligning tech to improve human lives: “we must stop asking only what AI can do, and ask instead what social capacities it should leave stronger after it is used.” If tech makes everyday tasks easier, that’s a great thing; if it removes the humanity and purpose behind those tasks, we’re in a dangerous place.
We’ll be back in September, but until then, keep up with our goings-on on the HRI homepage and on LinkedIn. If you have thoughts or questions, please feel free to reach out at [email protected], and if you were forwarded this and enjoyed it, please sign up via the homepage here.
