Mozambique, is it enacting internet restrictions during demonstrations or elections?

Paulo Vilanculo"

The text analyzes the regulation and restriction of internet access in Mozambique during periods of protest. Under the official argument of maintaining public order and combating disinformation, such measures raise serious concerns regarding respect for fundamental rights, freedom of expression, and civic participation.Given this scenario, the question remains unavoidable: is Mozambique moving towards the normalization of digital censorship at critical moments in its democratic life?

In Mozambique, the internet has become one of the few effective spaces for denunciation, civic organization, and social control over political power, especially in a context where traditional media face economic, political, and editorial limitations. The government justifies the normalization and institutionalization of internet access restrictions by pointing to the need to avoid unrest, hate speech, and social instability. However, this is a direct limitation on the right to information, freedom of expression, and civic participation—fundamental pillars of any functioning democracy. In practice, internet restrictions do not only affect specific groups considered "disturbers of the peace," but indiscriminately impact journalists, activists, civil society organizations, businesses, and ordinary citizens. Restricting this space drastically reduces the possibilities for public scrutiny, silences critical voices, and widens the asymmetry between the state and citizens.

For analysts and sectors of civil society, such measures raise serious doubts about their real purpose and their compatibility with the democratic rule of law. Under the official discourse of national security, combating disinformation, or preserving public order, these measures end up, in practice, configuring strategies of political control and social silencing.

In recent years, there has been a worrying increase in the number of African countries with authoritarian or hybrid regimes that have begun to regulate, restrict, or even suspend internet access, especially during politically sensitive periods such as popular demonstrations and electoral processes. In Tanzania, for example, the suspension of internet access in the post-election period created an environment of fear, misinformation, and forced silence, hindering the reporting of abuses and opening the door to a serious wave of repression. In Uganda, a total internet blackout was imposed two days before the presidential elections that extended Yoweri Museveni's rule. Although justified as a preventive measure against fraud and incitement to violence, the decision seriously compromised electoral transparency and the international denunciation of irregularities.

In the last elections in Mozambique, the strong control of traditional media over electoral campaigns became evident, marked by unbalanced coverage, limited plurality of voices, and a pronounced editorial dependence on dominant political interests. This scenario significantly reduced the space for genuine public debate, weakened opposing viewpoints, and prevented voters from accessing diverse and critical information about the programs, profiles, and proposals of the different candidates. Simultaneously, the weak or almost non-existent civic and electoral education contributed to an environment of misinformation, confusion, and discredit of the electoral process, factors that, combined, fueled high levels of abstention, especially among young people and urban voters. Contrary to the narrative that associates the internet only with chaos or disorder, recent Mozambican experience demonstrates that digital media played a relevant pedagogical and civic role, especially where the State failed in its responsibility to inform and educate voters. For many citizens, especially in urban and peri-urban areas, opposition live streams and debates on social media represented their first real contact with alternative political discourse, critical analyses of the electoral process, and perspectives outside the official narrative.

In this context of restricted information and impoverished institutional political debate, digital channels have emerged as alternative spaces for democratic participation. Live broadcasts by opposition parties, activists, and ordinary citizens on social media have broken, albeit partially, the information monopoly of conventional media, allowing for more direct, interactive, and horizontal communication with the electorate. These digital spaces have enabled immediate clarifications, denunciations of irregularities, civic mobilization, and spontaneous political debate, functioning as a kind of virtual public square in an increasingly closed political environment. Cutting off or limiting these channels means deepening abstention, reinforcing the feeling of political exclusion, and further emptying Mozambican democracy, in a context where voters' trust in institutions is already seriously weakened. Thus, controlling or restricting internet access during election periods cannot be dissociated from a captured media system with deficient civic education, where digital spaces have become one of the few effective instruments of political pluralism and the exercise of citizenship.

Sociologist Elísio Macamo draws attention to the profoundly political nature of the issue. According to the academic, demonstrations should not be seen as threats to power, but as legitimate expressions of democratic citizenship, especially when other institutional channels of dialogue fail. The question then arises whether those who today advocate restricting the internet would accept the same rule if they were out of power. In a context where the alternation of power remains fragile, silencing the internet does not strengthen the state; rather, it weakens democracy. Cutting off the internet, it is argued, only seems reasonable when one cannot conceive of political alternation or the possibility of one day needing these same means to be heard.

It is important to remember that, in 2012, the United Nations formally recognized internet access as an integral part of human rights, stating that the same rights guaranteed offline must be protected online, particularly freedom of expression, access to information, and civic participation. This recognition places digital connectivity within the realm of fundamental rights, not merely as a technical resource, but as a structural condition for the full exercise of citizenship in contemporary society. Regulating the internet cannot mean domesticating democracy. In a country marked by recurring electoral tensions, institutional fragility, allegations of irregularities in voting processes, and a history of police repression of social protests, blocking the internet does not resolve existing conflicts. The real challenge for Mozambique is not controlling the network, but building a political system capable of coexisting with criticism, dissent, and citizen participation as legitimate expressions of democratic life.

2025/12/3