Civil Society Under Threat

After several decades of consistent progress, the state of global freedom has entered a period of stagnation and possibly even decline. The reasons for recent setbacks to liberty are numerous and complex. However, to a significant degree, the reversal in freedom of association can be attributed to the emergence of a few large and assertive authoritarian states—countries that are geostrategically important, major participants in the world economy, militarily robust, and, in a number of cases, rich in energy and other natural resources. Increasingly active on the global stage, these countries—Russia, China, Iran, and Venezuela rank at the top of the list—also function as models for less powerful regimes with anti-democratic tendencies. At times, smaller countries have even emulated the techniques employed by these larger states to smother democratic currents; in a few cases, governments have even shared “lessons learned” in the methods of repression with likeminded regimes. Among the principal targets of the new authoritarianism is civil society. Democratic political parties, human rights organizations, women’s advocates, independent trade unions, groups that investigate corruption or monitor security service abuse, organizations that seek legal reform, groups that champion minority rights or religious freedom are all organizations that seek to provide ordinary people with a voice or influence on public policy, and all have come under growing pressure from regimes that are determined to marginalize or eliminate all perceived sources of opposition power and dissent. The result has been a notable reversal for freedom of association throughout much of the world. A new study, Freedom of Association Under Threat: Bureaucratic Strategies of the New Authoritarians, shows that over the recent period, associational rights have declined in practically every region of the world except for Western Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. The study finds that associational rights are under particular duress in the Middle East, North Africa, and the former Soviet Union. The study also shows that in the past several years, the most pronounced declines have occurred in the Asia-Pacific region and Latin America. In some instances, the study suggests, the declines are modest and may not pose a threat to a country’s long-term democratic prospects. In a disturbing number of cases, however, the study points to setbacks that stem from conscious policies of the state and therefore present serious challenges to the development of free institutions. The study also finds that the rights of trade unions, historically bulwarks defending associational rights, are faring poorly in authoritarian settings and in some democracies as well. It cannot be sufficiently emphasized that the campaign to restrict civil society runs contrary to the dominant political and cultural trends of the 21st century. These trends include freedom of movement within and across states, expanded access to information, and greatly enhanced international trade relations. Many of the regimes that have passed laws to impede the work of nongovernmental organizations have also taken steps to muzzle the press and freedom of expression. Despite the development of the Internet and other technologies, which have hampered authoritarian states’ efforts to suppress the freedom of press, the evidence thus far suggests that repressing the freedom of association may prove a less formidable challenge. Freedom of Association: A Core Right The fact that the setbacks to associational rights are so often due to calculated state action is the most disturbing finding of the study. Freedom of association is the foundational institution of a strong civil society and an essential component of pluralistic democracy, along with free and competitive elections, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and the rule of law. In an era in which traditional political parties have suffered a loss of credibility in many societies, freedom of association is especially important as a means of strengthening the voice of non-governmental organizations, trade unions, and other institutions that represent the interests of popular causes, constituencies, and ideas. In societies where political parties have been suppressed and an independent press silenced, civil society remains the only entity that prevents an authoritarian leadership from completely destroying pluralism and the very possibility of political choice. Freedom of association has also played a significant role in a number of the democratic transformations that took place during the past several decades. In response to these democratic gains, regimes in Russia, China, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Iran, and elsewhere have taken steps to suppress non-governmental organizations, unions, and other instruments of popular representation. What This Study Looks At This study assesses the state of associational rights both globally and on a regional basis. Through an analysis of data drawn from Freedom in the World, the report on global political rights and civil liberties published annually by Freedom House, Freedom of Association Under Threat looks at the global trajectory of associational rights and examines the techniques developed by authoritarian regimes in their attempts to weaken civil society. Perhaps the most vivid sign of pressure on civil society is the fact that 43 countries saw their scores for freedom of association indicators in Freedom in the World decline between 2004 and 2007, a figure that represents over twenty percent of the world total. Included in this group are a number of the world’s more important authoritarian countries, including Russia, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, and Iran. Also exhibiting decline is a group of countries in which political freedom, though subject to varying degrees of stress, has made some progress: Pakistan, Mexico, Philippines, Nigeria, and Malaysia. While some countries did register freedom of association gains, including a number from Sub-Saharan Africa, these tended to be smaller and less geopolitically significant than the societies showing decline, and did not include countries in which improvements would have a regional or global impact. Admittedly, most countries, including most authoritarian states, tolerate the existence of NGOs that carry out noncontroversial civic or humanitarian missions. Indeed, some countries welcome the emergence of an active, albeit depoliticized, NGO sector on the grounds that these entities may provide essential social services that the state cannot or is not interested in delivering. At the same time, a number of countries are placing intense pressures on organizations that serve political or quasi-political roles or raise difficult policy issues for the state. Organizations that defend human rights advocates, press for women’s equality, monitor the judiciary or the police, represent religious minorities, speak for university students, or defend journalists or writers are the principal targets of campaigns to limit the role of civil society by authoritarian governments. If the old totalitarian model, in which any initiative outside the realm of the state or dominant party was deemed impermissible, no longer pertains, authoritarian governments likewise eschew the tactics of violence in repressing non-governmental organizations. As the narrative reports in this study make clear, today’s authoritarians employ techniques notable for their reliance on techniques of repression that are much more sophisticated than was the case in the past. The officers of NGOs are seldom arrested, placed on trial, sent to gulags, exiled, or murdered, though all these things may still happen from time to time. Today’s authoritarians usually employ legalistic or bureaucratic methods to thwart the institutions of civil society. They direct the tax police to conduct repeated investigations of NGO or trade union finances; they enact laws that make it difficult or impossible for civil society institutions to raise funds; they impose draconian fines on NGO directors; they discover code violations in the buildings where NGO offices are situated; and they adopt rules that prevent global NGOs from establishing local chapters. A measure that has proved especially effective in defunding local NGOs is a blanket prohibition on contributions by sources outside the country. In many countries, funding from sources in the United States or Europe is critical to the existence of NGOs because so many societies lack the indigenous capacity to sustain civil society and have little or no tradition of philanthropy. Furthermore, even in societies where a wealthy class has developed, local businessmen may be reluctant to incur the wrath of the political leadership by making contributions to controversial causes. Ominously, because the drive against associational rights is conducted without violence, the process attracts little notice from the outside world. The Data On a superficial level, the assault on freedom of association can be demonstrated by the sheer number of laws and regulations that have been enacted within the past decade for the purpose of placing non-governmental organizations and trade unions under stricter state control. A number of the countries profiled in this report—including Russia, Egypt, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and Kazakhstan—have passed laws that increase the penalties for violation of regulations governing NGOs, place hurdles in the way of NGO funding, make NGO involvement in quasi-political functions illegal, or give the state sanction to directly involve itself in the oversight of internal NGO affairs. Data drawn from Freedom in the World illustrate the seriousness of the problem and identify the countries and regions where the decline is most serious. Through analyses of Freedom in the World for the year 2007 and through data set comparisons for the years 2004-2007, this study shows a conspicuous setback for freedom of association throughout much of the world, setbacks in a number of geostrategically significant countries, and decline in countries that already rank among the leading authoritarian states. To analyze the level of associational rights, this study looked at scores for the Associational and Organizational Rights category in Freedom in the World. The scores for this broad category are determined by the sum of the scores for three sub-indicators. First is the sub-indicator for freedom for nongovernmental organizations. Second are the freedoms of assembly, demonstration, and open public discussion. The final sub-indicator tracks the right of trade unions to exist independent of the state and the existence of effective collective bargaining. Regional Comparison As reflected in the Freedom in the World methodology, the highest possible score in the Associational and Organizational Rights category is 12. As is shown on Table C, Western Europe has the highest score of the various global regions; indeed, the countries of “old Europe” register a near perfect score for associational freedoms. The region with the second highest collective score is Central and Eastern Europe, a category that includes the three Baltic states, the Visegrad countries, and the Balkans. Given the relatively recent emergence of democracy in these post-Communist societies, the robust level of associational rights ranks among the most positive findings of this study. By contrast, the countries of the non-Baltic former Soviet Union register one of the lowest scores, 4.17, only slightly higher than the countries of the Middle East and North Africa, at 3.72. Our analysis also studied regional trajectory. As Table D indicates, the most important regional developments between 2004 and 2007 are sub-Saharan Africa, which moved in a positive direction, and Asia-Pacific, which declined. Sub-Saharan Africa is notable for its impressive improvement in associational rights, with 18 countries showing gains as opposed to seven with declining scores. Most regions, by contrast, showed modest levels of decline. The most pronounced was the Asia-Pacific region, with five countries showing gains and 12 showing backward movement. Of particular disappointment is the record of decline in the Middle East and North Africa during this period, with fully six of 18 countries showing declines in a region with an already low threshold. Looking at the record for the year 2007 alone, we noted an especially sharp decline in freedom of association scores on a global scale. In all, ten countries showed improvements in this area, while twice that number registered declines. As Table E indicates, both the Asia Pacific region and Latin America showed significant declines for the year 2007, with seven countries moving in a negative direction in each region. A more pinpointed examination of the record for 2007 shows notable decline in two sub-regions. First, four countries in South Asia registered declines in freedom of association: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Likewise, four Andean countries registered declines: Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, and Venezuela. In a related mini-trend, three of the Latin American countries with leftist-populist governments moved in a negative direction on associational rights: Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Methods of Control While the countries profiled in this report employ different techniques to keep civil society under control, most are driven by a common attitude of suspicion toward the non-governmental sector. Those NGOs that are involved in human rights defense, the defense of people’s individual rights, the policies or performance of the government, or some form of quasi-political work are regarded as potentially dangerous adversaries. The tactics used to control NGOs in these countries do not involve assassinations or mass arrests, but rather entail subjecting civil society groups to an intense regimen of bureaucratic oversight and harassment. For example, a Russian law passed in 2006 gives governmental officials the right to examine NGO records, including both financial documents and internal policy papers. The state has the right to attend meetings of NGOs that are, by any reasonable definition, designed to deal with internal matters, including fundraising and discussions of institutional mission. The law also gives the state the authority to suspend NGOs on broad and vague grounds that could be applied to any organization that clashed with Kremlin policies. The state can quash any project of an NGO or ban a branch of an NGO with projects located in different regions of the country. Regimes seldom if ever wage all-out war against the non-governmental sector, but rather differentiate between civil society groups, showing forbearance toward groups whose democratic credentials are weak, while cracking down on reformist, liberal, or secular NGOs. Egypt, for example, is tolerant towards groups identifying as Islamist, though not those with strong anti-regime tendencies. Egypt also permits organizations that oppose its peace treaty with Israel to conduct protest demonstrations. By contrast, Egypt has frequently acted to shut down NGOs and think tanks that advocate for democratic reform, jailed democratic advocates, and the political candidates of parties with a secular democratic orientation. Likewise, Russia is more tolerant of groups with a Communist or nationalist orientation than it is of groups with democratic leanings. In some countries, restrictions on NGOs are often justified on anti-terrorism grounds. In Russia, Egypt, Algeria, and Uzbekistan, among others, regimes often cite an anti-terrorism rationale to justify restrictions on civil society, often with popular support. At the same time, crackdowns on legitimate, nonviolent nongovernmental organizations have often had the unintended effect of strengthening extremist organizations, which are conditioned to exist under clandestine conditions in ways that nonviolent NGOs are not. In some countries, oversight of NGOs is administered, in whole or in part, by security forces. In Algeria, for example, NGOs must get approval from the Ministry of the Interior and Solidarity. Algeria has denied many foreign NGOs entry visas, effectively preventing them from establishing projects in the country. Some governments tolerate NGO activity in potentially controversial areas, like the environment, while restricting it in other sectors. Russia, for example, allows thousands of civil society organizations to function, including some that challenge government policies, but targets organizations whose missions include human rights, corruption of the elite, police abuse, election monitoring, Chechnya, and cases of Russian citizens before the European Court of Human Rights. Conclusion While this report has concentrated on recent setbacks to freedom of association, one should note that civil society is in a healthy state throughout much of the world. It is, in fact, a sign of great progress that freedom of association is thriving today in the former Communist countries of East and Central Europe, in which societies endured four decades of a system that regarded practically any activity outside state control as a threat and persecuted independent organizations that sought to expand the horizons of liberty. Similarly encouraging are the strides made in Latin America, a region where, not so long ago, voices of peaceful dissent were silenced through torture, exile, and death squads. But as the data from Freedom in the World demonstrate, freedom of association has experienced a downward slide in recent years. In many cases, of course, this decline does not signal a long-term trend; freedom, after all, usually progresses by the pattern of “one step backward for every two steps forward.” However, there are reasons to believe that what we are currently experiencing is not a passing phenomenon that will automatically correct itself in the near future. There is, first, the fact that the decline in associational rights has taken place in the constellation of countries that are authoritarian, resource rich, and involved deeply in the global economy. Second, it is especially troubling that a number of these regimes have elevated the stifling of dissent and independent action to the status of major political priority, have approached the challenge of limiting freedom with tactical and strategic sophistication, and have made clear that the suppression of civil society is a long-term project. How, then should those who cherish freedom and appreciate the democratizing role of NGOs, human rights organizations, and trade unions respond? While it is not the intention of the report to advance a laundry list of policy recommendations, certain propositions for an appropriate response to the new authoritarians’ war on civil society are suggested by its findings. First, there is an urgent need to shine the spotlight of publicity on the persecution of civil society and the campaigns against freedom of association. While the media are quick to protest actions against press freedom and religious organizations are vigilant in identifying the repression of freedom of belief, relatively little has been said about the assaults on associational rights. As an important issue, the repression of associational rights should also find the relevant forums, including the United Nations Human Rights Council and regional entities like the Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe and the Organization of American States. Furthermore, the democratic community should differentiate between the methods employed by the majority authoritarian states in suppressing civil society and the declines in associational rights in countries that are struggling to consolidate free institutions. The problems afflicting Mexico or even Nigeria are different in significant ways compared to current developments in Iran or Belarus. Finally, regimes that persecute dissent and restrict freedom of association, no matter how effective their efforts may appear, are betraying their weakness and not showcasing their strength. China’s pre-Olympic campaign against dissent was not a reflection of self-assurance. Neither are accusations from Vladimir Putin that NGOs that receive foreign assistance are “traitors,” nor the charges of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad that human rights groups are instruments of Western imperialism. Political leadership that is confident of its legitimacy does not need to wage war against peaceful organizations that seek democratic reform and popular participation.