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

A third finding is that space is being eroded gradually through subtle attacks or a protection of
the status quo. It is the sum of both the blatant and the subtle restrictive actions that are
detrimental to democratic space in the long run. Yet gradual erosion is harder to detect and call out
than a singular attack, and the sum of such gradual erosive tactics seems to be harder to respond to
in the long term. In addition, the prevention of change and a state of generalised impunity also
greatly limit democratic space.
Taken together the research points to a fourth finding that the different manifestations of closing
space have no geographical limitations. Closing democratic space is a global phenomenon, fuelled
by authoritarian learning and autocratic influencing strategies. This implies that global coordination
is necessary for an effective response.
When it comes to the roles of different actors, the fifth finding underlines that the judiciary,
political parties and civil society play a particularly important role in defending democratic
space. In many cases, civil society was able to push back on repressive tactics through advocacy,
public litigation, demonstrations, and the building of strategic alliances. In other cases, civil society
even managed to expand space for contestation. Generally, civil society was much stronger in its
defence of democratic space when the judiciary was still capable of upholding constitutionalism.
Opposition parties can also be an important ally for civil society, for instance in countering legislative
proposals, or in frustrating political processes aimed at closing space – this is especially true of
smaller political parties who have played an important role in cases where larger opposition parties
contributed to the closing of democratic space.
Closing democratic space has a differentiated impact on different population groups, particularly
women, youth, or people belonging to minorities. This means that people who are already facing
barriers in participating in decision-making processes 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.
Finally, a variety of actors – including criminal networks, business elites and political parties –
play a key role in closing democratic space. While the ruling government is often the main
perpetrator of autocratisation, the case studies illustrate the powerful role of criminal networks,
business interests or corrupt political parties in breaking down democratic space. Civil society, on
the contrary, is the main target as well as defender of democratic space.
This paper is designed to provide an accessible framework of analysis for closing democratic space
at a time of increasing policy and scholarly focus on the topic. It also provides new insights into the
roles of often overlooked actors within the political system and the role they play in protecting or
undermining space for contestation.
7