The contested spaces of civil society in a plural world: norm contestation in the debate about restrictions on international civil society support

Abstract

Civil society organizations are facing increasing political restrictions all over the world. Frequently, these restrictions apply to the foreign funding of NGOs and thus curtail the space for external civil society support, which, since the 1990s, has become a key element in international democracy and human rights promotion. This socalled 'closing space' phenomenon has received growing attention by civil society activists, policymakers and academics. Existing studies (and political responses), however, neglect the crucial normative dimension of the problem at hand: As we show, the political controversy over civil society support is characterized by norm contestation, and this contestation reveals competing perceptions of in/justice and touches upon core principles of contemporary world order. Taking this dimension into account is essential if we are to academically understand, and politically respond to, the 'closing space' challenge. It is also highly relevant with regard to current debates on how to conceptualize and construct order in a world that is plural in many regards and in which liberal norms are fundamentally contested. Empirically, the paper combines an assessment of the global debate about closing space in the UN Human Rights Council with an analysis of a specific controversy over the issue in US-Egyptian relations.

COVID-19 and shrinking civic spaces: patterns and consequences

“…At the same time, as these restrictions are justified as response to a particular threat, the very type of emergency also constrains the plausible range and type of measures. While in the overall debate 9/11 and its implications for the spread of shrinking civic spaces have received a lot of attention (see Carothers and Brechenmacher 2014;Howell et al 2008;Poppe and Wolff 2017), existing comparative studies rather focus on general factors (e.g. levels of foreign aid or commitment to human rights treaties) and recurring events (such as elections) to explain the phenomenon (see, for instance, Bakke et al 2020;Dupuy et al 2016) and have yet to systematically include individual, but salient events and crises as potential explanation.…”

“…This risk is particularly high because the COVID-19 pandemic has hit the world at a time when a significant number of countries were already moving in the direction of what has been dubbed “closing” or “shrinking civic spaces”. Since the early 2000s, politicians, civil society activists and scholars have observed a worldwide increase in government restrictions targeting civil society activists and organizations (CSOs) and limiting their space, autonomy and/or capacity (see Carothers and Brechenmacher 2014 ; Poppe and Wolff 2017 ). 2 While this phenomenon is complex and has many sources, another exceptional event with global repercussions played an important role in the current global diffusion of civic space restrictions: The terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and the subsequent “global war on terror” provided governments around the world “with a convenient discourse and justification for tightening their hold over NGOs and their opponents” (Howell et al.…”

“…With a view to the overall research on shrinking civic spaces, our contribution highlights the relevance of justifications put forward by governments when imposing civic space restrictions (see also Poppe and Wolff 2017 ). More specifically, this article adds to the role of idiosyncratic events, external shocks and emergency situations that shape the spread of, and the controversies over, civic space restrictions.…”

“…While in the overall debate 9/11 and its implications for the spread of shrinking civic spaces have received a lot of attention (see Carothers and Brechenmacher 2014 ; Howell et al. 2008 ; Poppe and Wolff 2017 ), existing comparative studies rather focus on general factors (e.g. levels of foreign aid or commitment to human rights treaties) and recurring events (such as elections) to explain the phenomenon (see, for instance, Bakke et al.…”

State‐oriented service‐delivery partnership with civil society organizations in the context of counter‐terrorism in Nigeria

“…There have been many debates on state formulation and entrenching of service-delivery roles for civil society organizations (CSOs) 1 in the context of counter-terrorism (Bolleyer & Gauja, 2017;DeMattee, 2019;Njoku, 2020aNjoku, , 2018Njoku, , 2019Poppe & Wolff, 2017;Skokova et al, 2018;Watson & Burles, 2018), but little is known about how such partnerships work in practice. Knowledge about how CSOs make sense of their partnership with the state and its implications also remains marginal.…”