There is consensus in the literature reviewed for this rapid query that the space for civil society to act has been increasingly restricted in the past decade. This is a global phenomenon – occurring in different ways and not in all countries – but in all regions of the world. It is occurring in all regime types – not just authoritarian countries. However, at the same time, in some contexts, civil society has acquired new spaces and enabling environments.
Key findings of the review include:
- Restrictions on civil society space come from a range of actors employing a mix of legal or quasi-legal, bureaucratic, financial, political, and security related methods. The literature explores a number of overlapping methods, including: restrictions to the formation, registration, operation and funding of civil society organisations (CSOs); restrictions of rights to freedom of assembly, expression and association; physical attacks; verbal and reputational attacks; restrictions to the enabling environment of civil society; and co-option of civil society groups by government or other actors.
- 44 percent of countries across the world have legislation specifically restricting foreign non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and/or foreign funding. This has increased over time. There have been an increasing number of physical and verbal attacks on CSOs and human rights activists. In response to large-scale civic mobilisations across the world, many governments have increased restrictions against the right to peaceful assembly. In 2014 CIVICUS documented ‘significant attacks’ on fundamental civil society rights of free association, free assembly and free expression in 96 countries. Freedom House (2015) found for the ninth consecutive year an overall decline in global political rights and civil liberties. The International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL) identifies that restrictions on the right to freedom have been growing in recent years across all regions and regime types in the world.
- Across thematic areas, groups are targeted most where they are seen to challenge power, corruption, or the interests of dominant political parties, national or economic actors. Mostly, governments use restrictions to target groups who they feel threatened by, or where targeting them benefits the government in some way. Civil society actors that engage in politically-sensitive activities or human rights and democracy-related activities are particularly targeted.
- General drivers are thought to include: concerns around sovereignty or foreign influence in domestic/national affairs; concerns over terrorism and extremism which have prompted states to exercise more control over CSOs; aid effectiveness principles; political elites seeing civil society as a threat to political power; and concerns over the legitimacy and accountability of some NGOs.
- General impacts are thought to include: organisations shifting to work on less sensitive issues, or to funding civil society through the government; organisations being shut down by governments or put into bureaucratic limbo; organisations shutting due to restrictions on foreign funding; organisations attempting to represent themselves differently to the host government.