Tshisekedi, 63, is scheduled to complete his second five-year mandate in December 2028. Under the current constitution, presidents are limited to two terms. However, a recently approved bill establishing procedures for national referendums could provide a legal mechanism for constitutional amendments, including potential changes to presidential term limits.

The legislation has cleared both chambers of parliament, where Tshisekedi’s ruling coalition holds a strong majority, and now awaits presidential approval.

Speaking at a recent news conference in Kinshasa, Tshisekedi said he was not actively seeking a third term but indicated he would be open to continuing in office if supported by voters.

“I didn’t seek a third term, but if the people want me to have a third term, I will accept,” Tshisekedi said, adding that any constitutional revision would require consultation with the Congolese public through a referendum.

The prospect of constitutional reform has generated growing political tensions in the vast Central African nation, where previous attempts by leaders to extend their rule have sparked unrest and international criticism.

Political analyst Ithiel Batumike of the Ebuteli research institute said the referendum legislation represented a significant step toward constitutional change and warned that opponents would need sustained pressure to block the initiative.

“Without sufficient pressure, those in power have no intention of stopping their plan to change the constitution,” Batumike said.

Opposition leaders argue that altering presidential term limits would weaken democratic institutions and reverse constitutional protections designed to ensure peaceful transfers of power.

Earlier this month, security forces and supporters of the ruling coalition clashed with demonstrators protesting the referendum bill in Kinshasa. Human rights organizations reported fatalities and injuries during the unrest, while authorities provided lower casualty figures and denied allegations of excessive force.

Martin Fayulu, a prominent opposition figure and former presidential candidate, accused Tshisekedi of violating the principles he pledged to uphold when taking office.

Another opposition leader, Delly Sesanga, warned that reopening debate on the constitution could threaten political stability at a time when the country faces significant security challenges.

The controversy is unfolding as government forces continue to confront the Rwanda-backed M23 rebel movement in eastern Congo. The insurgency has captured strategic urban centers and displaced large numbers of civilians, creating one of the country’s most serious security crises in years.

Government officials have repeatedly argued that ongoing conflict in the east could complicate preparations for future national elections. Political observers note that delaying elections because of security concerns has historically been used by some African leaders as an alternative means of extending time in office when constitutional reforms encounter resistance.

The issue carries particular historical significance in Congo, where former President Joseph Kabila abandoned efforts to prolong his rule after widespread protests and international pressure erupted over proposed electoral changes in 2015.

At the time, Tshisekedi, then an opposition leader, publicly criticized attempts to extend presidential tenure and called for respect for democratic processes.

With the referendum bill awaiting presidential approval and opposition groups planning further demonstrations, the debate over constitutional reform is likely to become a defining issue in Congolese politics ahead of the 2028 election cycle.

For more than a decade, Narendra Modi has remained at the center of Indian politics, shaping national debates, influencing policy priorities, and redefining the contours of electoral campaigning.

His political journey from a modest upbringing in Gujarat to becoming India’s longest-serving non-Congress prime minister represents one of the most significant leadership stories in modern democratic history.Since first taking office as prime minister in May 2014, Modi has led the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) through multiple national elections and overseen a period of profound political transformation.

His continued prominence in public life has made him one of the most recognizable political figures globally and one of the most influential leaders India has produced in the post-independence era.Modi’s rise was neither sudden nor accidental.

Born in Vadnagar in Gujarat, he spent decades working within the organizational framework of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) before becoming a key strategist and political organizer for the BJP. His reputation as an effective administrator grew during his tenure as Chief Minister of Gujarat from 2001 to 2014, where he promoted industrial development, infrastructure expansion, and investment-driven growth.

By the time he entered the national stage in 2014, India was witnessing growing public demand for decisive leadership, economic development, and administrative efficiency. Modi positioned himself as a leader capable of delivering change, presenting a vision centered on governance, growth, and national confidence.

The BJP’s landslide victory that year marked a turning point in Indian politics.What has distinguished Modi from many of his predecessors is his ability to maintain a direct connection with voters across social, economic, and regional divides. Through mass rallies, digital outreach, radio broadcasts, and extensive travel, he has cultivated a public image that extends beyond traditional political structures.

Political analysts frequently point to this communication strategy as one of the principal reasons for his durability. Rather than relying solely on party machinery, Modi developed a personal rapport with supporters, turning elections into leadership-centered contests.

Another factor behind his longevity has been the BJP’s organizational strength. Under Modi’s leadership, the party expanded its electoral footprint into regions where it had historically struggled. State-level victories, grassroots mobilization, and a disciplined campaign structure helped transform the BJP into India’s dominant political force.

His tenure has also been marked by major policy initiatives. Programs aimed at expanding financial inclusion, increasing access to sanitation facilities, improving digital connectivity, and delivering welfare benefits directly to citizens have formed a central pillar of his governance model.

Supporters argue that these initiatives have improved state capacity and brought government services closer to ordinary citizens.Modi’s leadership has coincided with India’s emergence as one of the world’s fastest-growing major economies.

During his years in office, India strengthened its position in global supply chains, expanded digital infrastructure, and increased its international profile through active diplomacy and participation in multilateral forums.On the world stage, Modi has cultivated relationships with leaders across ideological and geographic divides.

His engagements with the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the Indo-Pacific region have reflected an effort to position India as a leading global power.Several international leaders have publicly acknowledged India’s growing influence during Modi’s tenure.

Former and current world leaders have often described him as a strong political mandate-holder capable of implementing long-term policy goals. International forums including the G20 have provided platforms where India’s voice has become increasingly prominent.

At home, Modi’s supporters frequently cite his work ethic, disciplined lifestyle, and focus on execution as qualities that distinguish his leadership. His political messaging often emphasizes national pride, cultural heritage, self-reliance, and development.

These themes have resonated with large segments of the electorate and helped sustain his popularity across multiple election cycles.Yet longevity in democratic politics also invites scrutiny. Modi’s years in office have been accompanied by intense political debate over economic decisions, social policies, institutional reforms, and questions relating to governance.

Critics have challenged aspects of his administration’s approach, while supporters argue that difficult decisions were necessary to pursue broader national objectives.This combination of strong support and strong criticism has, paradoxically, reinforced Modi’s centrality in Indian politics.

Few leaders in contemporary India have generated such sustained public engagement, ensuring that political discourse often revolves around his policies and leadership style.Beyond electoral success, Modi’s influence can be seen in how political campaigning itself has evolved.

Modern Indian elections increasingly emphasize leadership branding, digital communication, data-driven outreach, and direct voter engagement. Many political parties have adapted elements of the campaign model refined during the Modi era.His journey has also become a source of inspiration for many supporters who view his rise from humble beginnings as evidence of the opportunities available within India’s democratic system.

The narrative of perseverance, organizational dedication, and long-term political commitment has become a defining feature of his public image.Historians and political observers will ultimately debate the long-term impact of Modi’s tenure. However, there is little disagreement about the scale of his influence.

He has presided over a period in which India experienced major economic, technological, diplomatic, and political changes while remaining one of the most electorally successful leaders in the country’s history.

As India continues its development journey, Modi’s legacy will be assessed through multiple lenses: economic performance, governance reforms, social transformation, foreign policy achievements, and his ability to reshape the political landscape. Regardless of where those debates lead, his place among the most consequential leaders of modern India is already firmly established.

The shutdown affected major urban centers, including the regional capital Muzaffarabad, where residents reported largely deserted markets, closed shops and inactive transport hubs. Similar conditions were reported in other towns across the territory.The strike followed violent confrontations on Sunday in the city of Rawalakot between JAAC supporters and security personnel.

According to authorities, seven people were killed in the unrest, marking one of the deadliest episodes of political violence in the region in recent years.The clashes erupted after the Supreme Court of Pakistan-administered Kashmir ruled that 12 legislative seats reserved for Kashmiri refugees residing in Pakistan are constitutionally protected and cannot be abolished without a formal constitutional amendment.

The JAAC, an alliance established in 2003, has campaigned for expanded political rights for residents of the territory and has long demanded the elimination of the refugee seats. The group argues that the arrangement grants disproportionate political influence to individuals who do not live within the territory.

Residents told local media that public participation in Tuesday’s strike was difficult to assess, with some people appearing to support the shutdown while others remained indoors due to concerns over potential violence.Prior to Sunday’s clashes, the JAAC had announced plans for a strike and a long march from Rawalakot to Muzaffarabad.

Witnesses said thousands of supporters gathered in the eastern city of Mirpur on Tuesday in preparation for the planned mobilization.Authorities responded by deploying additional police and security personnel throughout the region.

Internet services were also suspended in several major cities in an effort to limit mobilization and prevent further unrest.Police and regional government officials accused armed JAAC supporters of opening fire on security forces during Sunday’s violence. The organization has not publicly responded to those allegations in the information provided.

The regional government formally banned the JAAC last week, citing concerns over public order and security. Dozens of supporters have since been detained as part of the crackdown.Regional Prime Minister Faisal Mumtaz Rathore said his administration remains willing to engage in dialogue with representatives of the movement.

He stated that most of the group’s demands had been addressed during negotiations held last year, with the exception of issues relating to refugee seats and certain benefits provided to government officials and ministers.According to Rathore, those unresolved matters require legislative action because of constitutional limitations.

The refugee seats are allocated to individuals and families who migrated to Pakistan from Indian-administered Kashmir following decades of conflict over the disputed Himalayan territory. The arrangement was designed to provide representation for displaced communities affected by the region’s long-running political dispute.

Kashmir remains divided between Pakistan and India, both of which claim the territory in full. The dispute has been a central source of tension between the two nuclear-armed neighbors since their independence in 1947 and has led to multiple wars and recurring periods of instability.

Political tensions in Pakistan-administered Kashmir have intensified ahead of elections scheduled for next month, with debate over refugee representation emerging as a major issue following the recent court ruling and subsequent unrest.

The latest exchange between Israel and Iran marked the first direct confrontation since a ceasefire took effect in April, raising concerns about a broader return to conflict across the Middle East.The escalation followed Israeli strikes on Beirut’s southern suburbs. Iran responded with missile launches toward Israel, prompting calls from some Israeli officials for a forceful counterstrike.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir urged a severe response, declaring that Tehran should face immediate consequences following the missile attacks.Netanyahu defended Israel’s position by reiterating the country’s right to self-defense, arguing that no sovereign state could be expected to refrain from responding when civilian population centers are targeted by ballistic missiles.

Analysts said the Israeli response reflected both security considerations and domestic political pressures. Adi Bershadsky, a retired Israeli colonel and defense specialist, said it would have been difficult for any Israeli government to leave such an attack unanswered. He also suggested there may have been some level of understanding regarding how the confrontation would unfold.

The Israeli military said its chief of staff remained in close contact with his U.S. counterpart, signaling ongoing military coordination despite apparent differences in political priorities.Yaakov Katz of the Jewish People Policy Institute said Israel’s actions conveyed a message that while Trump may favor diplomatic arrangements with Iran, Israel retains the ability to act independently when it views its security interests as threatened.

Political considerations may also have influenced decision-making in Jerusalem. Israel is scheduled to hold national elections by the end of October, and analysts noted that Netanyahu’s political opponents could have criticized any perceived failure to respond to Iranian missile attacks.Michael Horowitz, a regional analyst, said no Israeli leader would likely have accepted a situation in which an Iranian strike went unanswered.

He described Netanyahu’s decision to proceed despite Washington’s preference for de-escalation as a political gamble.According to Horowitz, the move represented one of the most public instances in which Netanyahu appeared willing to diverge from Trump’s approach, even as both leaders remain closely linked through their joint military and strategic policies toward Iran.

The relationship carries political significance for both men. Since launching a coordinated offensive against Iran on February 28, the United States and Israel have shared responsibility for managing the fallout from the conflict while balancing domestic political pressures ahead of upcoming elections in both countries.

Anna Barsky, a commentator for Israeli newspaper Maariv, said the Israeli response carried risks because it could encourage additional Iranian attacks or trigger involvement from allied armed groups in the region. However, she argued that failing to respond to a direct missile strike would have established a precedent that many Israeli policymakers considered unacceptable.

Although both Iranian and Israeli leaders have signaled a desire to limit further escalation, tensions remain elevated. Israel has continued military operations in Lebanon despite warnings from Tehran that further attacks could provoke a stronger reaction.

The latest developments underscore Israel’s longstanding strategic challenge of maintaining close cooperation with Washington while preserving the ability to act unilaterally on national security matters, particularly when U.S. and Israeli assessments of regional risks diverge.

Just four months after leaving the League party, one of Meloni’s coalition partners, Vannacci says his new party, Futuro Nazionale, has attracted nearly 100,000 paying members and is polling at around 4% nationally, a level that could prove influential in a closely contested election.

The rise of the former paratrooper presents a strategic dilemma for Meloni. Embracing Vannacci could alienate moderate voters who have supported her efforts to reposition her government as a mainstream conservative force, while ignoring him risks allowing a rival on the right to gain further momentum.

Futuro Nazionale is due to be formally launched this weekend and is positioning itself as a nationalist alternative to the governing coalition, accusing Meloni and her allies of abandoning core right-wing principles.

“We represent that right which is not faded, not wavering, not fearful,” Vannacci said earlier this year, arguing that the government had softened its positions on European integration, migration and law-and-order issues.

The 57-year-old first gained national prominence after publishing a controversial book advocating traditional values while criticizing LGBTQ rights, migration and feminist movements. The publication led to criticism from Italy’s defense establishment and his suspension from active military service.

League leader and Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini later brought Vannacci into the party, helping him secure election to the European Parliament in 2024. However, the alliance proved short-lived, with Vannacci leaving in February to establish his own movement.

Political analysts say his emergence is likely to intensify competition within Italy’s right-wing electorate.

Sofia Ventura, a political science professor at the University of Bologna, said Salvini’s decision to promote Vannacci had ultimately strengthened a future rival and could pressure both Salvini and Meloni to adopt tougher positions to retain conservative voters.

An SWG opinion poll published on Friday placed Futuro Nazionale at 4.6%, narrowing the gap with the League, which stood at 5.8%. The same survey showed a loose alliance of center-left parties marginally ahead of the governing coalition.

Vannacci has aligned himself in the European Parliament with nationalist and Eurosceptic forces, including Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD), a stance that has complicated prospects for cooperation with more moderate coalition partners such as Forza Italia.

Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani, leader of Forza Italia, said he had no contact with Vannacci, although he did not rule out future discussions before the next election.

Since taking office in 2022, Meloni has sought to transform her Brothers of Italy party from a hard-right opposition movement into a governing force accepted by European and transatlantic partners. Her support for Ukraine and efforts to maintain constructive relations with Brussels have strengthened her international standing.

Vannacci’s platform challenges that approach. He combines criticism of the European Union with skepticism about Western military support for Ukraine and has argued against what he describes as unconditional backing for Kyiv.

His movement has already attracted eight lawmakers from coalition parties, highlighting concerns within government ranks that his influence could grow further.

Whether Futuro Nazionale develops into a lasting political force may depend on its ability to build a broader organization beyond Vannacci’s personal popularity. For now, however, his rise has added a new source of uncertainty to Italy’s increasingly competitive political landscape.

Official election results showed Fujimori securing 50.48% of the vote, while left-wing congressman Roberto Sanchez trailed with 49.52%, leaving a margin of fewer than 200,000 votes between the two candidates.

The tight contest mirrors Peru’s deeply polarized political landscape and recalls the razor-thin 2021 presidential election, when Fujimori narrowly lost to former president Pedro Castillo after weeks of disputes over vote counts and legal challenges.

Early exit polling released by polling firm Ipsos on Sunday had placed Sanchez ahead with 50.3% support compared with Fujimori’s 49.7%, a difference the pollster described as statistically insignificant.

Analysts noted that vote counting patterns could still influence the final outcome. Ballots from the capital, Lima, where Fujimori enjoys stronger support, are generally processed earlier, while Sanchez is expected to gain votes from rural regions whose results typically arrive later.

Fujimori, daughter of former Peruvian president Alberto Fujimori, is seeking the presidency after several unsuccessful bids. Sanchez has built his campaign on support from rural and lower-income voters, positioning himself as an alternative to Peru’s traditional political establishment.

Election authorities continued tallying the remaining ballots on Monday, with the final result expected to depend on late-counted votes from remote parts of the country.

Gunfire echoed through several districts of the Somali capital, with smoke rising over residential areas after hours of sporadic battles. Police said they were conducting a large-scale security operation against heavily armed militias accused of launching mortar attacks on parts of the city.

The violence follows a deepening political crisis after President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud announced an extension of his term beyond its scheduled May 15 expiry, a move rejected by opposition leaders and several regional authorities.

Former prime minister Hassan Ali Khaire accused government forces of attacking his convoy on Wednesday as he prepared to participate in demonstrations against the extension. Witnesses also reported clashes near the residence of former president Sharif Sheikh Ahmed.

The unrest comes as opposition groups mobilize protests against Mohamud’s plan to advance constitutional reforms and move Somalia toward direct elections, a proposal critics say concentrates power in the presidency.

Somalia remains politically fragile, with divisions among rival clans and a continuing insurgency by Al-Shabab complicating efforts to implement nationwide electoral reforms.

Despite formal ceasefire arrangements remaining in place, fighting has persisted across multiple fronts, with Israeli military operations expanding in Gaza and southern Lebanon and U.S. and Iranian forces continuing to exchange fire amid efforts to negotiate more lasting settlements.

In Gaza, an October ceasefire brokered with strong backing from U.S. President Donald Trump ended two years of full-scale warfare and secured the release of remaining hostages seized during Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel. However, key provisions aimed at establishing a postwar framework have yet to be implemented.

Israeli forces have continued military operations in the territory, capturing additional areas and targeting Hamas leaders. Israel now controls roughly 60% of Gaza, up from about half when the ceasefire was agreed, according to figures cited by officials. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said Israel intends to expand its hold further.The United States and Israel have attributed the stalled implementation of the ceasefire to Hamas’ refusal to disarm.

Hamas, in turn, has accused Israel of repeatedly violating the agreement through continued airstrikes and military operations. Local health authorities say at least 932 Palestinians have been killed since the ceasefire took effect.Humanitarian conditions in Gaza remain severe, with hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians continuing to live in temporary camps while reconstruction efforts remain stalled and plans for a new Palestinian governing structure unresolved.

In Lebanon, an April ceasefire has similarly failed to end hostilities between Israel and the Iran-backed Hezbollah movement. Fighting intensified over the weekend when Israeli troops raised their flag over Beaufort Castle in southern Lebanon, marking Israel’s deepest advance into Lebanese territory since the end of its 1982-2000 occupation.

Hezbollah responded with rocket attacks reaching deeper into northern Israel, underscoring the limited impact of efforts to de-escalate the conflict. The latest exchanges came despite Trump stating that both sides had again agreed to reduce tensions.Israel has said it will continue military operations until it no longer faces threats from Hezbollah rocket and drone attacks.

Lebanese efforts to address Hezbollah’s military status have made little visible progress as clashes continue along the border.The conflict in Lebanon has become increasingly linked to wider regional diplomacy. Iranian officials have demanded a ceasefire in Lebanon as part of any broader understanding with Washington.

Meanwhile, a separate ceasefire reached in early April among the United States, Iran and Israel has also come under strain. The agreement was designed to halt regional hostilities and facilitate the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping route whose disruption triggered sharp increases in energy prices.

Iran initially announced it would reopen the waterway but later reinstated restrictions after the United States imposed a naval blockade on Iranian ports. Washington has called for the unrestricted reopening of the strait and seeks concessions from Tehran regarding its nuclear program, while Iran has demanded sanctions relief, an end to the blockade and guarantees against renewed military action.

Negotiators appeared close to an agreement last week but failed to reach a breakthrough. Trump has repeatedly warned that military action could resume if Iran retains its stockpile of highly enriched uranium, while Iranian officials have said substantive nuclear discussions require a more durable ceasefire.

Military incidents have continued in and around the Strait of Hormuz. On Monday, the United States said it struck Iranian radar and drone facilities after Tehran allegedly downed a U.S. drone over the weekend. Iran subsequently said it launched missiles targeting American personnel in Kuwait, while U.S. officials said the missiles were intercepted.

In a statement posted on X, U.S. Central Command said it would continue protecting American forces while supporting efforts to maintain the ceasefire.

The persistence of military operations across Gaza, Lebanon and the Gulf highlights the growing gap between formal ceasefire agreements and conditions on the ground, where competing security objectives and unresolved political disputes continue to fuel violence.

The criticism followed Trump’s statement that Israel would suspend planned strikes on Hezbollah targets in Beirut as part of a new ceasefire arrangement. Lebanon later confirmed an agreement under which Israel would stop attacks on Beirut’s southern suburbs while Hezbollah would halt attacks on Israel.

Opposition figures, including former prime minister Naftali Bennett and centrist leader Yair Lapid, accused Netanyahu of yielding to U.S. pressure. Bennett said the government had “lost control of Israeli sovereignty,” while Lapid argued Israel was acting as if it were under American oversight.

Netanyahu rejected the criticism, saying Israel’s policy remained unchanged and warning that any future Hezbollah attacks would trigger strikes on militant targets in Beirut.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said Israel had refrained from attacking Beirut at Washington’s request but warned that renewed Hezbollah attacks would bring a military response.

The dispute highlights growing political tensions ahead of elections expected by October, with Netanyahu facing pressure from rivals who favor a tougher military approach toward Hezbollah.

De la Espriella, who has pledged a hard-line crackdown on criminal groups and has expressed support for U.S. President Donald Trump, fell short of the 50% needed for an outright victory. Cepeda, an ally of outgoing President Gustavo Petro, campaigned on continuing efforts to negotiate peace agreements with armed groups.

The runoff is expected to become a referendum on Colombia’s security strategy, with voters choosing between tougher enforcement measures and the continuation of peace-focused policies amid rising violence and growing influence of criminal organizations.