6 REPRESSION AND RESILIENCE: DIAGNOSING CLOSING SPACE MID-PANDEMIC 7. Support a democratic digital transition of infrastructure, institutions <strong>and</strong> oversight actors that allows democratic <strong>space</strong> <strong>and</strong> actors to thrive in the digital environment. 8. Lead by example, build back better at home through innovative <strong>and</strong> participatory decision-making as well as decisive action against democratic backsliding within the Union.
REPRESSION AND RESILIENCE: DIAGNOSING CLOSING SPACE MID-PANDEMIC 7 Introduction In the spring of 2020, many thous<strong>and</strong>s of people around the world faced the same dilemma: do I go out to join a protest? Or do I stay at home, out of fear for the potential health risks, criticism from fellow citizens <strong>and</strong> government officials, <strong>and</strong> protest itself becoming an ‘irresponsible’ act? This delicate balancing act, between exercising fundamental freedoms <strong>and</strong> preventing the spread of COVID-19, characterised both individual <strong>and</strong> government decision-making during the p<strong>and</strong>emic. This resulted in broadly two kinds of government responses. In some countries, the p<strong>and</strong>emic presented the perfect opportunity for autocratising governments to legitimise the closure of democratic <strong>space</strong>, presenting the choice between freedoms <strong>and</strong> health as binary. Yet in many other countries, the restrictions on fundamental freedoms were mostly justified to limit the p<strong>and</strong>emic. In such cases, unjustified restrictions resulted from government uncertainty over the virus’ nature, rather than an active attempt to close democratic <strong>space</strong>. As the distinction blurred between attempts to limit democratic <strong>space</strong> <strong>and</strong> strategies to prevent infection, it became particularly difficult to assess to what extent the p<strong>and</strong>emic measures affected democratic <strong>space</strong> globally. As donors <strong>and</strong> policy-makers around the world are looking to support post-p<strong>and</strong>emic recovery in partner countries, it is essential to underst<strong>and</strong> how democratic <strong>space</strong> was affected by the p<strong>and</strong>emic <strong>and</strong> how p<strong>and</strong>emic recovery plans can contribute to strengthening <strong>and</strong> exp<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>space</strong>. This study highlights the features <strong>and</strong> trends that marked democratic <strong>space</strong> developments during the COVID-19 p<strong>and</strong>emic. It builds on nine case studies conducted over the course of July 2020 to December 2020, focusing on Burundi, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Kenya, Ug<strong>and</strong>a <strong>and</strong> Venezuela. 1 This study also further develops a conceptual framework for underst<strong>and</strong>ing democratic <strong>space</strong>, initially developed in a previous study by the European Partnership for Democracy (EPD) <strong>and</strong> Netherl<strong>and</strong>s Institute for Multiparty Democracy (NIMD). 2 The new case studies provide an opportunity to refine the analytical framework <strong>and</strong> deepen our underst<strong>and</strong>ing of ‘democratic <strong>space</strong>’ - vis-à-vis the conceptual confusion <strong>and</strong> tensions with the term ‘civic <strong>space</strong>’. This paper first details the conceptual underst<strong>and</strong>ing of democratic <strong>space</strong> that underpins the research. The next chapter dives into structural trends in democratic <strong>space</strong> during the p<strong>and</strong>emic. The paper then moves on to take a closer look at the actors that defended democratic <strong>space</strong> during the p<strong>and</strong>emic. In conclusion, the paper offers some overall reflections <strong>and</strong> recommendations on what the p<strong>and</strong>emic means for practitioners, the EU <strong>and</strong> EU Member States’ policies <strong>and</strong> programming. 1 5 of the case studies were updates to previously conducted case studies in 2017-2019, namely El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia <strong>and</strong> Kenya. These countries were chosen for an updated case study due to their diversity in the kinds of attacks on democratic <strong>space</strong> <strong>and</strong> their geographic spread. 4 other countries - Burundi, Ug<strong>and</strong>a, Venezuela <strong>and</strong> Colombia - were added because they have very different political constellations <strong>and</strong> thus provide insights from different contexts. 2 European Partnership for Democracy & Netherl<strong>and</strong>s Institute for Multiparty Democracy (2020): Thinking democratically: A comprehensive approach to countering <strong>and</strong> preventing ‘shrinking’ <strong>space</strong>. Available here. The research was based on the following country case studies: El Salvador, Georgia, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Kenya, <strong>and</strong> Zimbabwe.
Change language