Repression and resilience: Diagnosing closing space mid-pandemic

42 REPRESSION AND RESILIENCE: DIAGNOSING CLOSING SPACE MID-PANDEMIC
the lockdown.
The executive undermined the fair political playing field by unevenly enforcing COVID measures. Where political
meetings of the ruling party could take place undisturbed, opposition parties and civil society were violently disrupted
by the police - even if they were observing social distancing measures and wearing masks. During one annual march,
the SabaSaba, over 65 protestors were arrested and others dispersed aggressively by the police.
As before the pandemic, the Courts and civil society organisations were the main defenders of democratic space
during the pandemic, greatly aided by media investigations. In March 2020, civil society was quick to adapt and provide
necessary services to the most vulnerable in society. Civil society’s quick mobilisation efforts and frontline work to
protect vulnerable populations activated informal community support networks, and reinforced democratic vitality
at the local level in unprecedented ways. Civil society also monitored the impact of the pandemic and police brutality,
challenged the constitutionality of a number of restrictions in court and received progressive rulings, compelling the
government to abide by its human rights obligations and also providing meaningful precedents for this period.
As legislative and procurement processes became less transparent, civil society petitions for access to information and
journalistic investigations into the use of COVID-19 funds provided essential avenues for accountability. Investigative
journalists uncovered major cases of mismanagement of COVID-19 funds, showing that dubious tendering processes
for medical products ended up filling the pockets of a corrupt elite, rather than alleviating the hardships of citizens.
This caused major public outrage on an unprecedented scale. Kenyans’ outrage on social media eventually led to
investigations and significant suspensions in the Ministry of Health.
The judiciary remained a bastion of independence, but it was also subjected to significant attacks by the executive,
with budget cuts, the failure by the executive to appoint 41 judges, and the failure of the executive to transfer tribunals
previously under government ministries into the judiciary - thereby contravening the constitution. The pandemic also
limited the population’s access to justice, as the justice system was temporarily paralysed by the pandemic measures.
While the government imposed limitations on freedom of movement and assembly, no state of emergency was
imposed. The Senate was quick to react and continued to play a strong oversight role, even as the National Assembly
was limited in its activities. More broadly, the opposition was fragmented following a rapprochement between the main
ruling and opposition party, thereby limiting the legislature’s effectiveness.
Indonesia
In Indonesia, the attacks on democratic space were very similar before and during the pandemic, but intensified
over the course of the crisis and saw the military take a central role in public affairs. As Indonesia declared a state
of emergency, it placed its four military institutions at the forefront of the pandemic management. The military
supervised the implementation of health protocols and patrolled the streets across the country, greatly increasing
military presence in the public sphere. In a country with a history of military rule, the pandemic and the resulting health
emergency provided the ruling party with an opportunity to legitimise the military’s re-entry into non-military activities.
The army was also involved in monitoring media and social media, and developing a drug against COVID-19. Such
military presence everywhere had a great deterrent effect on civil society and activism.