Since 2019, Togo has resolutely engaged in the decentralization process marked by communalization and elections of municipal councilors. Financial autonomy constitutes an essential lever for the free administration of municipalities, allowing them to ensure decision-making and the implementation of development projects. However, despite a legal and regulatory framework defining taxation specific to local authorities, Togolese municipalities are often perceived as needing more financial resources. This study aims to map the financing mechanisms for decentralization in Togo and analyze their contribution to municipal budgets. By adopting a quantitative approach combining documentary analysis and interviews with 188 experts and practitioners of local finance from various Togolese structures, four main financing mechanisms were identified: local, national, Community, and international. Among these mechanisms, own resources (in particular from the sale of products and services, fiscal and non-fiscal taxes) and state transfers via the Support Fund for Local Authorities emerge as the primary sources of financing for municipalities. However, the study reveals that several instruments of local mechanisms, although institutionally defined, still need to be updated in many municipalities, thus limiting their effectiveness in resource mobilization. These results highlight the importance of optimizing the management of local mechanisms to strengthen municipalities’ financial autonomy and support territories’ sustainable development.

This research calls for intellectual and methodological unity among Muslims considering the current fragmentation and disintegration affecting the community. It emphasizes the need for cohesion, moving away from confrontations with differing ideas and interpretations. The study highlights a key aspect of tolerance ethics, a trait exemplified by esteemed jurists throughout history, who incorporated these values into their writings and actions as a model for future generations. Their respectful conduct in dialogues, debates, and interactions with opposing views serves as a guiding example. Key themes include decorum towards differing opinions, the avoidance of offensive language, and fairness in judgments, refraining from examining others’ intentions. These principles of tolerance are evident in historical and biographical works, showcasing the jurists’ ethical approach and intellectual maturity in addressing both minor and major disagreements, reflecting an ethical dimension in their discourse.

The proliferation of digital literary discourse has led to a competitive, and often times antagonistic, relationship between this new form and its traditional paper-based counterpart. The success of this new critical literary media has come as a result of major global changes to social consciousness and societal pressures to utilize communication systems that can keep pace with the speed of social action. Discussions on the legitimacy of digital literary discourse are often limited by the use of conciliatory debates that merely present moderate viewpoints. This research addresses the issue using a socio-discursive lens, focusing on a critical exploration of the underlying reasoning for the technological wariness of paper-based literary practitioners. Contrary to the views of many traditionalists, digital literature does not derive its discursive identity, nor its legitimacy, from a combative relationship with paper-based criticism. Instead, this analysis indicates that the use of digital media marks a significant turning point in the institution of literary discourse, formed as a response to shifting individual and collective needs of an accelerating pace of life. Therefore, digital literary discourse is not simply a form or idea that can be accepted or rejected. Rather, it is a forced formation of a new and constantly evolving expressive and inferential space, created by the combination of existing and innovative media, producing new meanings that were impossible to generate under the dominance of old media.

This study examines the development and influence of the international anti-corruption regime, utilizing Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to dissect the discursive practices that shape perceptions of corruption and the strategies employed to combat it. Our analysis reveals how Western institutional entrepreneurs play a pivotal role in defining corruption predominantly as bribery and governance failures, underpinned by a neoliberal ideology that prescribes societal norms and identifies corrupt practices. By exploring the mechanisms through which this ideology is propagated, the research enriches institutional entrepreneurship theory and highlights the neoliberal foundations of current anti-corruption efforts. This study not only enhances our understanding of the institutional frameworks that govern anti-corruption discourse but also demonstrates how discourse legitimizes certain ideologies while marginalizing others. The findings offer practical tools for altering power dynamics, promoting equitable participation, and addressing the imbalanced North-South power relations. By challenging established perspectives, this research contributes to transformative discourse and action, offering new pathways for understanding and combating corruption. These insights have significant theoretical and practical implications for improving the effectiveness of corruption prevention and counteraction strategies globally.