Commemorating the 50th anniversary of the formation of the first wave of the Helsinki Monitoring Group in Moscow, Ukraine and Lithuania, new eastern europe The new issue is dedicated to human rights.
These early efforts set precedents in the Soviet Union and throughout Central and Eastern Europe, confirming that the treatment of individuals within states was a matter of legitimate international interest. Today, however, the world seems to be entering a new era of realpolitik, where power is the essence of justice, and where legal systems and human rights are treated as essential. In the preface to this issue, the editors point out that there is a growing tendency to subordinate human rights to national interests and the securitization of national policies.
Why human rights still matter
Barbora Bukowska, Senior Director of Legal Policy Article 19urges us, perhaps now more than ever, not to lose sight of the fact that human rights are an important means of fulfilling our responsibilities. Questions about whether human rights still matter, posed by those willing to set rights aside in favor of business or security, reflect the rhetoric of authoritarian regimes and “belong to a world that has already lost its morals,” she writes.
For decades, the world has favored deregulation and globalization, turning a blind eye to the hypocrisy of international law and human rights enforcement, deepening inequality and concentrating wealth. This weakness is only exacerbated by the climate crisis, where “the rights to water, health, housing and education are often ignored as political debates prioritize economic growth and national interests over human needs.”
Politically, Bukowska writes, we must insist on the recognition of human rights to curb abuses of power. Economically, we need to recognize that economic and corporate power is subject to the same limits that are placed on nations. And on a human level, we must respect the dignity of others. “If the last century has taught us anything, it’s that when people get tired of defending their rights, it doesn’t take long before they start losing them.”
Lukashenka’s war on women
Tatyana Astorskaya, a researcher at Harvard University’s Ukraine Institute, has dubbed 2026 the “Year of Belarusian Women” and explains how the government of President Alyaksandr Lukashenka in Belarus is instrumentalizing family policy under the banner of “traditional values.”
Lukashenka has made family and social issues one of the pillars of his national policy since he first came to power in 1994, but the latest appeal “demonstrates the regime’s growing obsession with stimulating birthrates.” Appealing to female voters has always been a logical move for Lukashenka, as women make up a clear majority of Belarus’ population (53.8% in 2025).
He has courted goodwill through various state benefits for large families and even a state award for women who have given birth to and raised five or more children, but welfare policy “remains highly arbitrary and dependent on the president’s personal priorities and whims.” Meanwhile, sexist rhetoric, state-run beauty pageants, and repeated blockades of domestic violence laws tell a different story.
The state’s increasingly repressive attitude toward women can be seen as a cynical response to the 2020 anti-regime protests, widely described as a “revolution with a female face” in which women played key roles both as participants and leaders. Since then, the number of women facing political persecution, including exile, imprisonment, and forced labor, has exceeded Stalinist levels.
Astorskaya writes that imposing endless responsibilities on women, especially mothers, is a way for the regime to keep them out of the political arena and reduce their ability to organize and resist. “This is a calculated and deeply cynical mechanism designed to ensure that a moment like 2020 never happens again.”
Ukraine’s election dilemma
As Russia’s war with Ukraine enters its fifth year, debate intensifies over the possibility of holding elections in Ukraine despite constitutional barriers that prohibit them under martial law.
Maria Didkowska, project coordinator at the Kyiv-based American Institute, explains that the issue was brought to the fore by the United States. The United States has threatened to withhold security from Ukraine unless it holds a presidential election and a referendum on a peace agreement. Meanwhile, the Kremlin continues to use the postponement of Ukraine’s elections for propaganda purposes.
Kyiv claims it is willing to amend the law to facilitate this process, but “legislation alone cannot guarantee feasibility,” Didkowska wrote. Rather, a cessation of hostilities is necessary. President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has suggested a 60-day ceasefire, but the Russian government says it will only consider a 24-hour ceasefire. Besides obtaining reliable and enforceable security, there are also practical issues such as allowing freedom of movement, ensuring open information and campaigning, updating electoral data, and providing basic security conditions in and around polling stations.
There are also complex issues to consider whether the results are representative and valid. It is how to organize voting for the millions of internally displaced persons and international refugees whose voting opportunities are “at risk of being limited by limited voting infrastructure.” and how members of the military can access campaign information and vote democratically. Next, there is the issue of the people of the occupied territories. How could Ukrainians vote under Russian occupation? “War has reshaped constituencies geographically, administratively and socially, and the system must respond accordingly.”
Didkowska proposes a number of solutions to these challenges, including digital innovation. However, it is highly unusual for an election to be held in a country experiencing active fighting, so international organizations such as the OSCE may be reluctant to participate in observer missions. “Ukraine faces a dilemma on a scale never before faced by most modern democracies: how to protect the integrity of the ballot while protecting the very survival of the state.”
Review by Alastair Gill
Source: Eurozine – www.eurozine.com
