Restricting NGOs: From Pushback to Accommodation

Civil society organizations (CSOs), also known as non-governmental (NGOs) or nonprofits, are facing difficult times. Since the mid-2000s, scholars, policy makers, and activists have been sounding alarm bells over growing tendency of governments around globe to restrict ability civil groups form, operate, advocate for particular causes, receive use resources, network with other actors. Different labels ascribed this phenomenon, including ‘shrinking civic space’, ‘closing space’ (Brechenmacher Carothers, 2019; Buyse, 2018; Malena, 2015; van der Borgh Terwindt, 2012). While these vary in their meaning, clarity, usefulness, what does seem be clear is that there has a significant negative global shift state-civil relations since turn millennium, increasingly unable operate freely they could earlier periods. The concept ‘civic wide, defined differently across publications institutions. Brechenmacher Carothers (2019) discuss states restricting space independent organizations. Buyse (2018, p. 269) proposes wider view ‘practical room action maneuver citizens CSOs’. Malena (2015, 7) sees it composite measure specific capabilities: ‘the freedom means speak, access information, associate, organize, participate public decision-making’. This supported by advocacy group CIVICUS, whose combines freedoms association, assembly, expression.1.1 https://monitor.civicus.org/whatiscivicspace/ provides sense larger trend decline democratic rights freedoms, special issue we narrow on how new, state-imposed legal restrictions forms repression impact specifically, responded restrictions. Arguably, crackdown most visible its effects NGOs: formal, non-profit, It NGOs like Human Rights Watch Amnesty International actively raising awareness increased organizational freedoms. We define private, not profit, non-state formal controlled operated market, but which may funding resources from businesses. They organized common purpose such poverty alleviation at national, local, and/or international levels order provide services address community problems through (see Dibie, 2008; Tarrow, 2001; Vakil, 1997). Because status nature, brick-and-mortar offices, bank accounts, statutes articles incorporation, status, arguably more easily subject attacks than informal, grassroots nebulous social movements. In some countries, Russia even Israel, strong foreign connections financial dependencies subjected pejorative, government-imposed ‘foreign agent’ cases forced display public, label intentionally designed government actors discredit delegitimize existence. States (the third sector beyond state market) broadly extra-legal means. Most visible, counted categorized, restrictions, particularly those imposed (organizations home office one country branch offices countries) both national NGOs. always regulated organizations, new emerged wherein increasing numbers adopting restrictive regulations NGO operations (Dupuy et al., 2016). These measures hamper foreign-sourced material funding, limit work issues perceived politically sensitive (such human rights). Emboldened weaponized law constrain presence behavior NGOs, engaging harassment intimidation CSOs general, violent non-violent. phenomenon captured attention science who studying dynamics, consequences state-society relations. As result, literature topic growing, so our understanding reasons adopt CSO (Bakke Bromley Christensen Weinstein, 2013; Dupuy 2016; Gilbert Mohseni, Glasius 2020; Howell 2008); types (Buyse, Musila, Rutzen, 2015); dynamics countries (Tysiachniouk 2018), Kenya (Wood, 2016), Egypt (Brechenmacher, 2017) Ethiopia 2015), implications advancement values (Carothers, Smidt 2020). Knowledge efforts aid donors respond, react, push back against clampdown (Bossuyt Ronceray, ICNL, Kreienkamp, 2017). contributions add literature, examining trends CSOs, impacted (including ways operations), can change balance between rival ideological perspectives, enable rise attacking existing shape popular attitudes donor funds. Importantly, shed light respond attempt states. Finally, several papers widen analytical lens organization examine closing social, political, economic outcomes. remainder piece introduces different Special Issue, situating them per theme significantly contribute to, pointing areas further research themes. One basic questions within academic literatures nature clampdown, terms patterns clampdown. Several institutions policy-oriented monitoring spread anti-CSO generally, UN Rapporteur peaceful assembly Watch, International, Center Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL), Carnegie Endowment Peace, Freedom House, Strategic Studies, number donors. To date, focused answering like: Where occurring, points time? What being adopted, states? kind activities behaviors restricted why? Which impacted? Without good answers questions, know severity scope whether diffuse time, fundamentally reshaping finds 2019, least 50 world laws place individuals support them. Musila 12 African adopted six pending legislation. Interestingly, rejected point return below. al. find 60 had year 2015. 2018, CIVUCUS reported was under attack 111 measuring using expansive notion space. Ultimately, imposition following pattern decade-long associational democracy all, House (2020). prohibit working ruling regimes political – thus nature. include rights, equality, gender sexuality, anti-corruption, governance, elections. Legal negatively affect rights-based 2018). (2015) found case Ethiopia, draconian Charities Societies Proclamation 2009 led demise country’s while (2017) helped crush promotion. Beyond handful studies, however, lack systematic service delivery environment (Matejova insights into well how. Using updated data (2016), Fransen 90 worldwide 1990 2018. cover entry sector, operations, work, reporting, receipt funding. authors clampdowns transnational advocacy. Transnational collaborations among proved instrumental facilitating growth clout pushed recognition various globe. Investigating transnationally-linked Zambia Bangladesh Global North, his co-authors continue after changed ways: strategies, adjust way move away explicit temper connections, disband when activities. Roggeband Krizsan’s contribution examines women’s activism. argue closure targeted specifically rights-promoting anti-government (with two often going hand hand). Governments instrumentally strategically prop up power target challenge power, effect reorganizing very apparent Eastern Europe, where Hungary, Poland, Croatia disempowering equality denying excluding processes, discourses frame work. Furthering look conservative part general space, Pousadela Perera form anti-rights themselves Anti-rights varied, paramilitary forces, private corporate security entities, criminal gangs, religious fundamentalist groups. Rights-promoting groups, clamp down pro-rights argument ‘bad society’ (Chambers Kopstein, 2001) exist acquired Berman, 1997 Nazis, Sullivan, 2007 Taliban Afghanistan) curtail spaces active well-documented date. shaped states, regulatory necessarily exercised pro-liberal primary constraining coincidental, bilateral multilateral directly contributed liberal low- middle-income especially end Cold War. Foreign traditionally viewed forces positive change, alternatives failed foot soldiers catalysts rights. result influence yielded, many chosen ‘strike back’ foreign-supported channels If aim reduce inflows, then CSO-restricting granted wish. increase constraints funds society; Prakash fund experience 32% flows years enacting measure. an unpublished paper, Chaudhry Heiss (2018) greater flows, 45% less channeled towards CSOs’ engage channel legislation domestic rather CSOs. Why, exactly, restriction-adopting understood merits investigation, remittances direct investment. goes concern allocations looks instead individual charitable giving conjoint survey experiment, Chaudhry, Dotson, trust givers key face criticism abroad. Specifically, high likely donate INGOs friendly relationships hostile host governments. Donors low do opposite results highlight understudied role funders’ perceptions governments) destinations play shaping amounts money, whom. implication restrictions: if will goods aid-receiving contexts. Hossain Oosterom’s takes important question widely studied. neglect reasons: first fact in, of, fairly recent implementation uneven. Second, only limited no causal outcomes; rather, might interactions variables. But should lose sight having impacts. few studies looked just tell us citizens’ participation Prakash, 2020) abuses reducing monitor expose (Smidt that, unanswered remain about impacts outcomes expression opposition parties, protests, movements), citizen engagement society, achievement development (specifically, hunger) Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Brazil. involvement organizations’ critique policies, society’s delivery. retard progress achieving hunger, marginalized society. suggests socio-political reconfiguration itself, When deny deemed certain ideologies exert influence, voices empowered expense others. upper comes control making. allows discourse mass regimes. Recent Issue indicate insight needed relationship media. Selvik’s shows link organize act press other. CIVICUS reports journalists main targets place. Other reports, turn, media can, willingly unwillingly, enhance (Fransen 2019). demonstrated vulnerable ephemeral is. vulnerability proposed without provoking reaction (Baldus 2017; resisted ways, demonstrate. adapt area inquiry (Bloodgood Tremblay-Boire, 2011; Bloodgood early adaption legislative environments Africa, Bratton (1989) argues strategies own regulation maintain autonomy: avoid governments, selective collaboration government, operating strategy, smaller, local-level community-based all. Tremblay-Boire (2010) outline five response counterterrorism OECD countries: hiding, shirking, vocal opposition, participating, litigating. organizations' starts right time proposed. once repressive imposed, involved disbanding, continuing informally choosing domestically, circumventing registering type organization, advocacy, switching focus escape scrutiny. made secretive, targets, issue, language change. news all bad. cases, successful pressuring Berger-Kern show contribution. Kyrgyzstan, broad alliance local used combination lobbying campaign persuade drop regulations. Rakner’s successfully mobilize threats undermine rules. Benin, Malawi, Senegal, Zambia, mobilized protests attempts constitutional aimed prolonging parties’ hold power. And demonstrates Ghana Africa’s robust democracies lobbied twenty information law, employing finally 2019. An additional interact fundamental function society: movements facilitate collective campaigning promote opposition. agency respect. Iran, Honari Muis psychological factors help explain why Green Movement supporters aftermath 2013 elections liberties expression) heavily repressed state. Honari’s research, pieces Perera, raise make broader acts. Do acts proliferate place, alternative tactic society? welcome. 2020, window opportunity opened repress COVID-19 pandemic. disease renewed excuse watchdog listed beginning review monitoring. responses pandemic 44 enacted 124 emergency decrees.2.2 https://www.icnl.org/covid19tracker/?location=&issue=9&date=&type= Still association. Government-mandated lockdowns, quarantines, prohibitions gatherings prevented meeting, protesting, expressing dissent, Contributors researchers tracking during (Barendsen Bethke Wolff, Hayes Joshi, 2020).3.3 See https://www.istr.org/blogpost/1851131/Research-Networking-Covid-19-and-Third-Sector Much required next fully understand reacting, responding, pushing repression. Kendra researcher affiliated Chr. Michelsen Institute (CMI) Bergen, Norway, Peace Research Oslo (PRIO). She researches development, environmental natural resource management. holds PhD University Washington. Luc Associate Professor Relations Amsterdam, co-editor European Journal Relations. His fields interest Corporate Responsibility, labor sustainability Aseem Political Science, Walker Family College Arts Sciences, Founding Director Environmental Politics He Fellow Reputation, Oxford.