On 5 March, Nepalese citizens will vote to elect all 275 members of the House of Representatives (HR), the lower house of the Federal Parliament of Nepal. The elections were announced on 12 September 2025 by the President of Nepal on the recommendation of the government of Nepal, following widespread anti-government demonstrations, which resulted in the formal dissolution of the HR.

The election will take place under two ballots, one to elect 165 members from single-member constituencies via first-past-the-post, and another to elect the remaining 110 members via party-list proportional representation. A party, or coalition, must receive at least three per cent of the votes to be allocated a seat in the proportional vote. Nearly 19 million people are registered to vote, including 915,000 first-time voters, more than two-thirds of whom belong to Gen Z.

Approximately 3,500 candidates from 68 different parties, plus independents, are set to take part in the election. There have been no widely published and credible national opinion polls projecting party vote share. However, based on the previous election in 2022 and the seats held at the time of dissolution, there are five major contenders, representing the entire political spectrum, from communist parties to right-wing pro-monarchist parties.

ASSESSMENT

Nepal’s parliament was formally dissolved on 12 September following widespread youth-led anti-government protests, which began on 8 September. The Gen Z-led demonstrations were triggered by the government’s decision to restrict 26 social media and online platforms after they failed to register within a seven-day deadline. The protests quickly escalated into a broader anti-corruption movement, with mass demonstrations in Kathmandu and several other cities. The protests resulted in the burning down of Nepal’s parliament building and widespread clashes with police and security forces, who responded with live ammunition. In total, an estimated 76 people were killed, and over 2,000 injuries were recorded. In response to the unrest, the military imposed a curfew, ending the violence. The demonstrations triggered a lifting of the social media ban and the resignation of Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli.

Following the dissolution of parliament, the military coordinated with youth representatives, who discussed the appointment of an interim prime minister on a Discord server with over 100,000 members. The members settled on former chief justice Sushila Karki, who became the first female prime minister of Nepal and was given the mandate to lead a transitional government, oversee the restoration of order after unrest, and organise fresh general elections by March 2026. Karki has agreed to step down following the vote.

The election will almost certainly represent a contest between older established parties, such as NC, CPN-UML, and NCP, and newer youth-oriented parties such as RSP. Among Nepal’s established parties, older candidates over 40 dominate nomination lists, which contrasts with Nepal’s electorate, 52 per cent of whom are aged between 18 and 40. The established parties largely retain support from rural voters, older citizens, longstanding party loyalists, public sector workers, and patronage-dependent constituencies. The established parties have attempted to expand their appeal to Nepal’s youth through social media engagement, having historically failed to resonate with young voters, who perceive the parties as mired in entrenched corruption, dynastic politics, unrepresentative of younger voters, and having limited internal democracy.

Despite the attraction of less-established parties and the power of the youth vote, NC and CPN-UML are the likeliest parties to win the most seats. Firstly, they are the only two parties fielding candidates in nearly all 165 constituencies. Secondly, an alliance of NC and CPN-UML won convincingly in the National Assembly election on 25 January 2026, with NC winning nine seats and CPN-UML winning eight, out of the total 18 contested seats. Moreover, the fact that 68 total parties are contesting the election means seat fragmentation is the likeliest outcome, which typically benefits parties with the broadest base.

RSP is positioned as a key challenger, appealing to Nepal’s large youth base, but its vote share in the 2022 election was 10.7 per cent, compared to NC and CPN-UML’s 25.7 and 27 per cent, respectively, meaning it would need more than double its vote share to realistically compete. The monarchist RPP won 5.6 per cent of the vote and is unlikely to be a major challenger; however, recent pro-monarchy protests may indicate that it will increase its vote share.

It is highly unlikely that any single party will secure the 138 seats required for a majority in the 275-member HR, suggesting that a hung parliament is the most probable outcome. Consequently, some form of coalition-building will be required, potentially involving ideologically incongruous parties and controversial nominations. Such coalition-building is unlikely to have broad public appeal, especially given long-standing frustration with elite power-sharing arrangements, opportunistic alliances, and the role of patronage politics.

Sporadic violence is highly likely around the election. On 9 February, the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) issued a warning declaring that “[t]here is a risk of protests, political violence and travel disruption ahead of the general election scheduled for 5 March 2026.” Extra security forces have been drafted to ensure order, with around 300,000 officers and temporary election police deployed as campaigning began on 16 February.

In Nepal’s 2022 elections, clashes occurred around polling centres across the country. In one instance, police opened fire during fighting at a polling station, killing one person. Explosions also occurred near polling stations in numerous districts, although no one was injured, suggesting the improvised explosive devices (IEDs) were intended for disruption and intimidation purposes. Similar incidents are highly likely in the upcoming elections, given the highly fragmented political landscape in Nepal and the long history of localised electoral violence.

The government has grouped polling centres based on risk level, classifying 3,680 as “highly sensitive”, 4,442 as “sensitive”, and 2,845 as “normal”. No “highly sensitive” polling stations are in Kathmandu and Bhaktapur; many are, instead, in more geographically remote areas, with Madhesh Province having the highest number. Three police officers and ten election police members will be deployed to the “highly sensitive” polling stations; three police officers and six election police will be deployed at “sensitive” polling stations; and two police officers and five election police will be deployed at “normal” polling stations.

One of the major lines of tension is between monarchists and republicans. On 18 February, former king Gyanendra Shah called for the election to be postponed, warning that the ongoing nationwide dissatisfaction could deepen political instability. Nepal experienced clashes between monarchist and republican protesters during large-scale pro-monarchy demonstrations in both 2023 and 2025. In both protests, mass arrests were made, and many people were injured, resulting in the security forces deploying tear gas and water cannon, as well as imposing curfews.

In November, over twenty youth-led monarchist groups submitted a memorandum calling for the resignation of Prime Minister Karki. Monarchist groups also engaged in demonstrations on 13 February, when thousands of monarchists rallied to greet Gyanendra Shah on his return from holiday, ignoring prohibitory orders around the airport. The calls from Gyanendra Shah to postpone the elections, alongside the recent history of violence between monarchists and republicans, almost certainly increase the risk of clashes around polling stations on 5 March.

There is also a realistic possibility of civil unrest following the publishing of election results. Former Prime Minister Oli of the CPN-UML, who was ousted in the youth-led unrest in September 2025, could be elected again due to the party’s historical dominance and broad voter base. If CPN-UML fail to appeal to Nepal’s youth, they will likely perceive Oli’s potential return to office as a reversal of the September uprising. Furthermore, many remain dissatisfied with the lack of accountability for the excessive force used by security forces, the perceived impunity for political elites, and unfulfilled reform expectations, and some groups oppose the election itself, arguing that the interim government has “betrayed” the September revolt.

On 12 February, over 127 million Bangladeshi citizens will be eligible to cast their votes for the first time since the 2024 July Revolution, which toppled the 15-year government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her Awami League (AL) party. Voters will elect 300 members of the Jatiya Sangsad, the 350-member national parliament. The remaining 50 parliament seats are reserved for women and are assigned proportionally by the other MPs. Voters will also decide on the July Charter, a constitutional reform framework agreed upon by 30 parties following the uprising.

Dozens of parties have fielded more than 1,900 candidates to contest the 300 seats. However, the electoral campaign has evolved into a two-sided contest. On one side, the big-tent Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) is leading the polls. Before the revolution, BNP was the main opposition party in Bangladesh. Since AL was banned in May 2025, BNP has managed to attract large swathes of supporters of the previous government.

Opposing it is a coalition, known as the “Like-minded 11 Parties” or “United Bangladesh”, founded in October 2025. The group is led by the other two major players in Bangladesh’s post-revolution political scene: the long-established Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), which has emerged as a leading force on the right after years of marginalisation under Hasina, and the new, student-led National Citizen Party (NCP).

NCP, which was founded after the uprising, initially emerged as a reformist, progressive force. However, it has struggled to translate street support into electoral momentum. Its alliance with JI, which places it within a de facto right-wing Islamist coalition, has led to significant infighting, further weakening the party. In January 2026, 15 NCP party leaders resigned over the coalition deal.

Reflecting the high levels of insecurity, on 5 February the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office (FCDO) updated its Bangladesh travel advisory to recommend “against all but essential travel” to the country.

ASSESSMENT

The two votes are likely to be very differently contested. The referendum will highly likely return a resounding victory for the “Yes” vote, as the July Charter remains backed by all the major parties as well as the incumbent interim government. However, the parliamentary vote will likely be deeply competitive.

The failure of the NCP to organise effectively and to build a significant base of support has made it likely that the elections will be a contest between the BNP and JI. This dynamic is likely to be conducive to growing ideological polarisation and street violence. Throughout January 2026, several episodes of violent clashes between BNP, JI, and other parties’ canvassers have occurred across the country, injuring dozens of people.

A key test for the stability of post-electoral Bangladesh will be whether there is a general acceptance of the outcome of the 12 February vote. Several factors are likely to hinder such a scenario. First, current polls indicate a close contest between BNP and JI. There is a realistic possibility that polls will return a close or uncertain result, which could prolong the vote-counting period and delay the release of final tallies.

Second, several leaders have publicly warned of “plots” to doctor the results. These statements could constitute attempts to lay the foundations for a rejection of the vote as invalid. Finally, local media have reported on a growing spread of online disinformation targeting the election, often leveraging Artificial Intelligence-generated content. The spread of fake or misleading stories online has become a key driver of mob violence in Bangladesh and is likely to intensify during and after the vote.

Deep political polarisation and the spread of online disinformation have a realistic possibility of inciting “vigilante” violence by political activists targeting poll workers or voters during and after voting procedures. In the days immediately following the vote, further cases of mob violence targeting officials, candidates, and elected representatives, as well as inter-party clashes, remain likely. Attacks on foreigners, minorities, or foreign-owned businesses are also possible, particularly if claims of “foreign involvement” in the election were to spread online. For example, previous cases of mob violence have targeted American-owned businesses or businesses perceived to be pro-American or pro-Israeli.

In the medium term, instability and violence are likely to remain pervasive. The likelihood of further insecurity will largely depend on the parties’ acceptance of the election outcome. In a scenario where this occurs, possibly via a commitment by the parties to respect the electoral results, Bangladesh could reach a level of greater political stability. Pre-election commitments, however, would need to be paired with assurances that the new opposition will not be marginalised from the policymaking process. These dynamics would need to involve at least the three major parties, but could be extended to other key political players. This, of course, would not eliminate other pre-existing issues, such as the economic and labour-related challenges faced by Bangladesh, but would likely reduce the short-term threat of political violence.

A more likely scenario involves the elections resulting in protracted political instability. In this scenario, competition for control of the patronage networks left behind by AL’s collapse prevents the parties from reaching a meaningful agreement. Even if the central leadership acquiesces to a deal, local and student chapters, who are more dependent on local patronage networks, are likely to continue violently competing. Smaller groups marginalised under Hasina are expected to exploit the opportunities created by the revolution, but are likely to react negatively to any indication that they will continue to be excluded from any form of political influence.

In any scenario involving long-term political instability, economic instability is likely to deteriorate. Foreign direct investment (FDI) would likely decrease, especially in key industrial sectors, as investors delay commitments or reallocate capital to more stable markets and political environments in the region, such as India, Indonesia, Vietnam or Cambodia. In the fiscal quarter following the July Revolution in 2024, FDI inflows to Bangladesh dropped by 71 per cent, as investors avoided the country due to deadly political unrest, labour agitation and high degrees of political and economic uncertainty.

Failure to achieve any meaningful form of political stability or cohesion in Bangladesh is likely to reinforce the country’s economic and security issues. In turn, prolonged instability is conducive to worsening recurrent cycles of economic disruption, labour unrest, political violence, deteriorating crime rates and sectarian tensions, many of which remain unresolved.

On 8 February, Thai citizens will vote to elect members of the House of Representatives, the lower house of the National Assembly, following its dissolution in December 2025. 500 seats are up for election, with 400 chosen by constituency and the remaining 100 allocated to political parties in proportion to their nationwide vote share. 251 parliamentary votes are required to elect a prime minister, which is typically achieved through post-election coalition negotiations between multiple parties. The election must be certified within 60 days, by 9 April, and the parliament must convene within 15 days of election results being confirmed.

A referendum is also scheduled for the same day to determine whether to replace the current constitution, which was only enacted in 2017. Thailand’s Constitutional Court ruled in September 2025 that drafting a new constitution requires three referendums. The first would approve the initiation of the drafting process; the second would focus on the draft’s key principles and approach; the third would constitute final approval of the draft.

57 parties have registered to take part in the election, but three main parties will be the primary contenders: the ruling conservative Bhumjaithai Party (BJT), the progressive reformist People’s Party (PP), and the populist Pheu Thai Party (PTP). Incumbent Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul is representing BJT. PP and PTP are the third incarnations of previous parties dissolved by the Thai courts for legal or technical breaches.

ASSESSMENT

Thailand’s current constitution was adopted in 2017 following a political crisis, which led to the removal of Yingluck Shinawatra in a military coup in 2014. As it was drafted under a military junta, the current constitution was approved in a tightly controlled referendum and is viewed as granting excessive power to the Senate, which has the authority to approve the prime minister and members of numerous independent bodies, including the Thai Constitutional Court. Many Thais view the constitution as imposed rather than chosen and have demanded reforms.

The election is taking place amid a broader political crisis. The border dispute with Cambodia, which led to direct fighting in July and December 2025, triggered the expulsion of former Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra (niece of Yingluck and daughter of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, both members of PTP or one of its predecessors) after she expressed deference to the Cambodian former leader Hun Sen and criticised the Thai military in a leaked phone call.

Her successor, Anutin Charnvirakul, who took power in September, has faced heavy criticism over his minority government’s handling of the flooding in southern Thailand in November, which left at least 176 people dead. Adding to this was PP’s pulling of support from the BJP and its looming vote of no confidence over its alleged failure to honour promises to reform the constitution, compelling Anutin to dissolve parliament and call a general election in December.

A coalition government is the expected outcome of the election, with no party likely to win an outright majority. According to recent polling by Suan Dusit, respondents to a 28 January poll backed BJP by 21.14 per cent, PP by 21.11 per cent, and PTP by 17.56 per cent. 23.85 per cent of respondents were “still undecided”, suggesting that there could be a large disparity in electoral results from the polling. In a 6-9 January poll, PP leader Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut was the top choice for prime minister for 31.99 per cent, with PTP leader Yodchanan Wongsawat second on 17.45 per cent, and the incumbent Anutin third on 15.14 per cent. However, BJP’s polling has likely been inflated by a surge in nationalism linked to the ongoing Thailand-Cambodia border dispute and could diminish in the lead-up to the election, should the current ceasefire continue to hold.

Despite its popularity in the polls, PP faces potential legal action from the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) that could bar dozens of its members from running for attempting to amend Article 112 of the Criminal Code, Thailand’s royal insult (lèse-majesté) law, in 2021. The amendment sought to reduce penalties, narrow who could file complaints, and limit what constitutes an offence. While procedurally lawful within parliament, the proposal was later characterised by opponents as an abuse of office and an act undermining the constitutional order.

In the 2023 election, PP’s progenitor party, Move Forward, which openly campaigned on amending Article 112, won 151 seats in parliament, the most votes of any party, but was blocked from power by lawmakers tied to the royalist military due to its support for the amendment. Its prime ministerial candidate, Pita Limjaroenrat, was subsequently suspended from parliament and later barred from politics after Thailand’s Constitutional Court ruled that his candidacy violated electoral law, effectively preventing him from assuming office.

Since then, PP has moderated its position during this electoral campaign, dropping the call to change Article 112 and softening its stance on the military, which it previously wanted to drive out of politics. Even so, PP’s historical backing of the amendment almost certainly exposes the party to political pressure and, in extremis, potential bans from candidacy.

Should PP receive the most votes but be barred from candidacy, widespread protests are highly likely, as was observed in 2023. These would highly likely be led by the Thai youth, who make up a large part of the reformist parties’ support base. Previous bouts of major unrest mixed with institutional paralysis have triggered coups from Thailand’s powerful military on numerous occasions. This is unlikely to occur again in the short-term due to independent mechanisms typically now being preferred tools for managing political crises in Thailand in an effort to increase democratic legitimacy. However, if protests become widespread, violent, and sustained, with a political deadlock over the election winner, this would highly likely increase the risk of a coup.

Large-scale unrest is not the only potential physical risk likely to increase in Thailand during the electoral campaign. Thailand has been experiencing an ongoing separatist insurgency since 2004 in the southern provinces of Pattani, Yala, Narathiwat, and parts of Songkhla. Insurgents have traditionally increased attacks during electoral cycles to undermine the central government and achieve maximum publicity for their cause. In 2023, insurgents set fire to cell phone towers and tyres across Yala, Pattani, and Narathiwat provinces. During the election periods in 2011 and 2014, insurgent activity increased around polling and campaigning phases, marked by attacks on infrastructure, local officials, and security forces.

On 11 January 2026, a series of coordinated bomb and arson attacks targeted PTT petrol stations across Thailand’s Deep South, injuring at least four. A member of the largest insurgent group, Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN), has since declared that the group is “likely to conduct attacks like arson, shootings and bombings to remind political parties of their demands” around the general election. Further attacks in the run-up to the election are likely, with incidents likely to be contained to the southern border provinces of Pattani, Yala, Narathiwat, and parts of Songkhla, and designed to generate publicity and exert political pressure, rather than cause mass casualties. However, attacks on Thai Buddhists, state officials, military personnel, police officers, and local Muslims perceived as cooperating with the authorities have increased in recent years, and there is a realistic possibility that more hardline elements of the insurgency will conduct more deadly attacks during the electoral period.

Costa Rica will hold general elections on 1 February to elect the president, the two vice presidents, and the 57 members of the Legislative Assembly. To be elected president, a candidate must secure at least 40 per cent of the vote in the first round. If that does not occur, the two candidates who received the most votes will compete in a run-off election on 5 April. If multiple candidates cross the 40 per cent threshold, the one who receives the most votes is elected president in the first round. Legislative Assembly seats are assigned via proportional representation across the country’s seven electoral districts.

Current polls indicate that Minister of National Planning and Economic Policy Laura Fernández Delgado is a clear favourite to win the first round. Polling from 21 January suggests she is approaching the critical 40 per cent mark, providing her with a realistic possibility of securing an outright first-round victory if current support levels are maintained. Fernández is running for the right-wing populist Sovereign People’s Party (PPSO), which was only founded in 2022. She also has the backing of incumbent President Rodrigo Chaves, who is currently an independent and barred from running for re-election.

Several candidates are competing for a possible second spot in the runoff, although they are all polling below double digits. They include: Álvaro Ramos Chaves, of the centrist National Liberation Party (PLN), Fabricio Alvarado, an Evangelical singer who heads the conservative New Republic Party (PNR), Claudia Dobles Camargo, the former first lady of Costa Rica who is supported by the centre-left National Democratic Agenda (AND) coalition, and Ariel Robles Barrantes, of the democratic socialist Broad Front (FA).

ASSESSMENT

The elections occur at a time of increasing political turmoil in Costa Rica. President Chaves is currently involved in a conflict with the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) and has survived two attempts to strip his electoral immunity over suspected electoral violations. This instability was highlighted on 19 January, when the head of Costa Rica’s intelligence agency reported that it had received information about a plot to assassinate Chaves ahead of the vote, although the activist who was accused has denied the allegations and suggested they were politically motivated.  

Moreover, the crime rate has increased significantly, which has largely been attributed to the spread of transnational organised criminal groups since the late 2010s. In 2023, the murder rate reached 17.2 per 100,000, around 40 per cent higher than its previous peak in 2017. Increasing crime rates have resulted in growing public scepticism towards the political class. According to polls, large sections of the electorate have become disillusioned with the existing parties, with up to half of voters still undecided regarding their preferred candidate.

Law and order and the fight against corruption are highly likely to be the main issues during the electoral campaign, mirroring patterns observed in other Latin American states. In countries like Chile, Honduras, and Ecuador, leaders have increasingly responded to these concerns with promises to implement Mano Dura (“Iron Fist”) policies. Such policies have been characterised by mass detentions, increased police powers, and the curtailing of civil liberties. Mano Dura’s application by the government of El Salvador, which resulted in a sharp decrease in the violent crime rate, has become a model for other Latin American nations seeking to combat organised crime.

Fernández, expanding on Chaves’s positions, has pledged to implement Mano Dura in Costa Rica, vowing to build a “maxi-prison” like El Salvador’s CECOT facility, curtail civil rights in high-crime areas, and extradite Costa Ricans involved in organised crime to other countries, especially the US. These hardline stances, combined with Chaves’s enduring popularity (likely bolstered by the president’s clash with the legal “establishment”, have likely solidified Fernández’s primacy in the polls.

Still, Fernández’s victory, while highly likely due to the significant divisions within the opposition, is not certain. If the vote goes to a runoff, her competitor will almost certainly have an opportunity to unify at least part of this fragmented vote. However, the low levels of disillusionment within the electorate may make a significant swing in support between the two rounds unlikely.

Costa Rica has a long history of stable and peaceful political transitions. However, the country has had occasional waves of large-scale unrest, which have at times turned violent. The latest occurred in 2018, when labour unions staged a three-month strike over a proposed tax reform. The strike was marked by widespread and sometimes violent clashes between authorities and the protesters, as well as multiple incidents of vandalism.

It is unlikely that the upcoming vote itself will trigger large-scale violent unrest in Costa Rica. However, persistent political tensions, particularly the unresolved dispute between the executive and the TSE, could become catalysts for broader instability depending on the policies adopted by the incoming administration in its early months. The potential and controversial implementation of Mano Dura–style security measures is likely to result in significant division. While rising crime rates and the threats associated with transnational organised crime groups will almost certainly be leveraged to justify their implementation, for many, such draconian policies will likely be interpreted as a state overreach in a country that has traditionally championed democratic institutions and civil liberties, and which has historically been less affected by violent crime than many of its Central American neighbours.

On 18 January, Portuguese citizens will vote to elect their new President for a five-year term. The winning candidate needs to obtain a majority of 50 per cent of votes plus one. If that fails to occur, then the two leading candidates will compete in a run-off vote on 8 February. The incumbent President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, in office since 2016, is constitutionally barred from seeking a third consecutive term.

Portugal is a semi-presidential republic, and the president, while mostly holding ceremonial responsibilities, has some tangible political power (unlike, for example, the heads of state of Italy and Germany). For example, the president has the authority to veto laws and appoints not only the prime minister, but also other members of government.

Eleven official candidates are contesting for the presidency. A first-round victory seems highly unlikely, and current polls indicate that only five of the candidates have a realistic possibility of progressing to the second round. André Ventura, the founder of the far-right nationalist party Chega! (CH) leads the polls with approximately 19.5 per cent support. Marques Mendes, the candidate of the governing centre-right Social Democrat Party (PSD), polls at 19 per cent. António José Seguro, of the Socialist Party (PS), has around 17.5 per cent support, as does Henrique Gouveia e Melo, an “outsider candidate” and former Chief of the Naval Staff who is running as an independent and has significant centre-right support. Finally, João Cotrim de Figueiredo, president of the Liberal Initiative (IL), polls at around 16.5 per cent.

ASSESSMENT

The elections are likely to be a crucial test for Chega that could accelerate the party’s political momentum. In May’s parliamentary elections, Chega won 22.8 per cent of the vote, improving on its 2024 result and becoming the main opposition force in parliament. On the other hand, Chega was generally seen as having underperformed at the October 2025 local elections, only winning in three municipalities.

Securing the presidency would almost certainly grant Chega significant leverage over the governing PSD-led coalition. A Chega president could threaten to weaponise presidential veto powers to extract significant legislative concessions and shift the parliament to the right, encouraging PSD to work more often with Chega.

Holding the presidential office for five years is also an important political asset at a time of extreme parliamentary instability in Portugal. The 2025 vote was the third in three years, and the current governing coalition only retains a parliamentary minority. Finally, Chega’s position is further reinforced by Portugal’s lack of a developed cordon sanitaire system; the informal agreement that, in the parliaments of other European countries, such as France and Germany, centrist parties unite to keep the far-right out of power.

Current polls indicate that Ventura is likely to reach the second round. In other European head-to-head electoral contests involving a far-right candidate (such as, for instance, the second round of the 2022 French presidential elections), supporters of rival parties have typically coalesced around the leading alternative candidate to deny a far-right victory. However, several of the presidential candidates are from the right of the political spectrum, and if the choice is between Chega and the Socialist Party, Ventura’s chances will likely markedly increase, with right-leaning voters, not affected by a cordon sanitaire, potentially opting for Chega to block the left. On the other hand, a centre-right candidate may have a greater chance of winning centre-left voters by positioning themselves as a “lesser of two evils” against the far-right.

While presidential elections in Portugal seldom result in protests, a (likely) second round involving Ventura, which raises the possibility of a Chega head of state, would likely become an important cause of public opposition. Chega’s growth in the polls has meant that party rallies have increasingly been met by large counterprotests. Occasionally, as during the April 2025 Revolution Day celebrations in Lisbon, these demonstrations have escalated into clashes between opposing groups.

Furthermore, the likelihood of civil unrest after the first round of the elections is further increased by recent political developments in Portugal. In December, Portugal experienced its largest general strike in a decade, which forced the government to amend a labour reform package that opponents said reduced workers’ rights. Before the protests, the reform, proposed by the PSD coalition, was widely expected to be approved by parliament with Chega’s support. Chega representatives later backtracked and called on the government to amend the legislation as protests gained significant traction. Emboldened by their recent success, labour unions may stage further demonstrations, particularly if the runoff appears to be “tilted to the right”, for example, in a Ventura-Mendes scenario.

While large-scale protests cannot be ruled out, especially in Lisbon, protests after the first round are likely to be mostly peaceful and smaller-scale. On the other hand, direct action by groups opposing Chega is likely. This may include vandalism, particularly targeting party premises and police and government offices, and possibly small-scale political violence, such as clashes involving opposing political activists.

On 25 and 26 June 2025, the annual NATO Summit is set to take place in The Hague, Netherlands, for the first time since the founding of NATO in 1949. The event is set to host approximately 8,500 visitors, consisting of approximately 45 heads of state, 45 foreign ministers, 45 defence ministers, 6,000 delegates, 2,000 journalists, and 800 guests.

The summit is occurring within the context of the Trump administration consistently distancing itself from NATO, major developments in the war in Ukraine, and European NATO leaders increasingly discussing the necessity for capable European defence and deterrence against Russia that is independent from US support. While an official agenda has not been published, the summit will almost certainly address defence funding and membership status for its member states, in addition to boosting NATO defence capabilities.

The summit will almost certainly trigger significant travel disruptions and heightened security threats in the Randstad area from 22 to 27 June.

Numerous security measures will be implemented during the summit. 27,000 police officers, approximately half of the Dutch National Police force, are set to be deployed across the two days, supported by 5,000 armed forces personnel and special forces teams on 24-hour standby.

Patriot air defence systems and counter-drone installations will reportedly be used to defend the summit from aerial threats. F-35 fighter jets and Apache patrols will also occur over the city and along the coast. An air exclusion zone will operate over a 22-kilometre stretch of coast between the Hook of Holland and Noordwyk.

Security will be prioritised at the World Forum (where the summit will be taking place), Huis ten Bosch (where the leaders will dine), and the Grand Hotel Huis ter Duin (where President Donald Trump will likely reside).

Significant travel disruptions should be expected during the week of the NATO Summit. The World Forum is approximately 30 minutes from two of the Netherlands’ largest airports, Amsterdam Schiphol Airport (AMS) and Rotterdam The Hague Airport (RTM).

Significant airport disruptions are almost certain, particularly at Schiphol, where the Polderbaan Runway will be closed to air traffic between 21 and 27 June. With the Buitenveldertbaan Runway currently under maintenance, commercial air traffic will be reduced by between 25 and 30 per cent during this period, with an estimated 100,000 passengers likely to face cancellations or rescheduling. This may increase traffic at The Hague airport as flights reroute.

Transport disruptions will also affect road travel. Authorities are set to close roads to transport world leaders on the A4, A5, A44, N44, and N440 from 22 to 27 June, which will almost certainly disrupt travel between Amsterdam, The Hague, and Rotterdam. The N434 will also be closed in the afternoon and evening of 25 June. Local and regional roads around the Hague, Wassenaar, Katwijk, Noordwijk, Haarlemmermeer, Leiden, and Rotterdam will also be closed, making several areas difficult to reach. Large-scale diversion routes have been set up.

The most congested periods will highly likely be late 23 June, early 24 June, and late 25 June. Triple the normal traffic volumes are to be expected at least 450 kilometres around the periphery of the World Forum. In anticipation of major traffic disruptions, the Dutch government have warned people to avoid the central Randstad region between 23 and 26 June, advising residents to work from home as much as possible and to use public transport if travel is necessary. Public transport will likely be overcrowded as people avoid driving disruptions and follow government advice, likely leading to an increase in petty crime.

There will almost certainly be civil unrest in the days around the event. An international protest has already been organised for 22 June at Koekamp near the Hague Central Station by the Dutch Counter Summit Coalition for Peace and Justice. A “Counter Summit” conference has been scheduled for 21 to 22 June, which may draw additional protesters to The Hague.

Authorities have designated specific areas for demonstrations, with small-scale protests allowed around the World Forum, and larger-scale protests limited to the Malieveld. While the demonstrations will likely be peaceful, the high levels of security during the summit raise the possibility of clashes between protesters and security forces.

There will likely be a heightened risk of cyberattacks and espionage, perpetrated mostly by Russia. Typical hybrid threats from Russia, in its campaign to gain a competitive advantage over its Western adversaries, include disinformation campaigns, sabotage, and cyberattacks.

Disinformation, particularly on social media platforms like X, will likely be used to sow confusion and undermine confidence in authorities; fake security, transportation, or health and safety alerts online are a potential method. Espionage could additionally target business travellers as hostile actors attempt to access confidential and proprietary information. Public Wi-Fi networks are a likely target, with perpetrators aiming to steal personal data or credentials.

Cyberattacks and sabotage targeting essential services such as transport infrastructure pose another threat, with perpetrators incentivised to cause disruptions to reduce the summit’s credibility.

There is an increased threat of terrorism, resulting from the high visibility of the event. Before the event was announced, the Netherlands’ National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism (NCTV) placed the country at a threat level four, indicating a “substantial” risk of terrorist attack.

A recent attack took place on 27 March 2025, where a mass stabbing occurred near Dam Square, injuring five individuals. The perpetrator was a Ukrainian citizen from Donetsk; the motive is still unclear, but he has been charged with attempted murder with terrorist intent.

While the high levels of security likely lower the risk of coordinated attacks by violent extremist organisations (VEOs), lone actor attacks are more difficult to mitigate against and predict for intelligence agencies. Lone actors typically use unsophisticated opportunistic methods, including vehicle ramming, knife attacks, and arson.

At approximately 10:30 (local time), a car ramming occurred in the centre of the Bavarian city of Munich, at the intersection of Dachauer Strasse and Seidlstrasse.

According to witnesses, an individual drove a vehicle into a crowd of members of the Verdi labour union, who had gathered for a rally in the Königsplatz area. Other witnesses reportedly stated they heard some gunshots, but these testimonies could not be corroborated by authorities at the time of writing.

At least 28 people were injured in the attack, with “several” in critical condition. No deaths have been reported as of the time of writing.

The police arrested the perpetrator on the scene. According to local German media, the suspect is a 24-year-old Afghan national, who was known to local police for previous non-terror-related offences. Available information suggests that the perpetrator of the attack acted alone.

While the police blocked traffic in the area immediately adjacent to the site of the ramming, no reports of widespread traffic closures or disruptions were identified as of the time of writing. The Munich Security Conference, which will be attended by numerous world leaders and high-profile figures, is scheduled to be held in the centre of the city between 14 and 16 February

READ MORE

In 2024, LGBTQ+ rights face a dynamic landscape shaped by shifting politics, religious perspectives, and socio-cultural norms. Navigating this environment demands a nuanced approach to advocacy and policy-making that embraces complexity and diversity.

The alleged suspect, a 71-year-old writer and political activist, was detained at the scene. Authorities are investigating the motive behind the attack, which is widely believed to be politically motivated.

Fico, who secured office in October 2023 after a divisive campaign, has been a polarising figure. He is one of the few European leaders advocating for closer ties with Russia and has called for an end to the EU’s military support for Ukraine. Under his leadership, Slovakia has halted all arms deliveries to Kyiv.

Fico’s government has made controversial moves, including a proposal to abolish the country’s public broadcaster and weaken anti-corruption laws. These actions have sparked fears about media independence and democracy in Slovakia, leading to widespread protests. Some believe these tensions contributed to the assassination attempt, with Fico’s ruling SMER party blaming false narratives from the opposition.

The attack on Prime Minister Fico is expected to lead to heightened security measures across Slovakia. In the long term, this incident might be used to justify suppressing dissent and pushing through more contentious government proposals. Additionally, Russian-affiliated social media accounts have been spreading information suggesting Ukrainian or NATO involvement, with some posts inciting violence against European officials.

Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has hinted that the attack could be linked to Fico’s stance on Russia. While the risk of terrorism in Slovakia remains low, there is a realistic possibility of targeted violence and harassment against pro-EU Slovakian officials in the coming weeks.

READ MORE

The rise of both far-right and far-left political parties in Europe in recent years has significantly complicated and energised the political landscape in the continent. This trend is expected to persist into 2024.