Thinking Democratically: A Comprehensive Approach to Countering and Preventing Shrinking Space

levels of state capture. Finally, in Europe restrictions in civic space have become increasingly
widespread, while some countries have also attacked the independence of the judiciary and spread
polarising rhetoric to limit democratic space.
In addition, the case studies showed that closing space is different to different population groups. In
particular, women, youth, or people belonging to minorities are disproportionately affected and
targeted by attacks to close democratic space. People with vulnerabilities resulting from
intersectionalities are even more at risk. This means that people who are already facing different
barriers to participate in decision making are even more affected and further excluded when
democratic space is being closed. This has important implications for how to best support these
underrepresented groups in a closing space context.
Closing space is thus not a linear process, but a multi-layered non-sequential phenomenon affecting
the whole political system. Progressive changes on one level can exist in parallel to regressive
changes on another level, such as in the case of Georgia where improvements in the judiciary and
the rule of law, go hand in hand with attacks on political contestation. There is no clear sequence in
these different strategies, even though attacks on civic space have in many cases been a precursor
to reforms that strip the judiciary of its independence, and constitutional or electoral reform that
limits democratic contestation.
B. Gradual erosion through subtle attacks or a protection of the status quo
While the term shrinking space has come to embody pro-active attacks on civic space such as
restrictive laws or disruptions of protests, democratic space is also being restricted through more
subtle, invisible and long-term actions. Just like V-Dem has identified that autocratisation occurs in
a very gradual manner, these case studies show that democratic space is being shrunk by a multitude
of actions that are far more invisible, subtle and gradual at eroding the space for democratic
contestation and decision-making. Authoritarian regimes learn and adapt to international trends and
criticism, for instance by refraining from overt attacks on civil society and employing other, more
subtle means to repress democratic actors.
Where in some cases one can witness an active closing of democratic space (as in Kenya, Honduras,
Georgia and Indonesia), other cases are marked by a proactive protection of a restrictive status quo
(Guatemala and El Salvador). In such cases, the prevention of change, rather than any visible
enforcement of change, gradually contributes to a closing of democratic space.
Likewise, impunity has a major long-term impact on fundamental freedoms in practice, but it does
not reach global attention without concerted civil society action on individual cases. Impunity has a
chilling effect on civil society, media and political actors, inducing fear of stepping into the public
and speaking out, be it against the government or criminal networks.
This is clearly demonstrated in the case studies of Guatemala and El Salvador, where there is far less
coordinated civil society pushback in the form of advocacy, public litigation or petitions, for instance.
44