Repression and resilience: Diagnosing closing space mid-pandemic

REPRESSION AND RESILIENCE: DIAGNOSING CLOSING SPACE MID-PANDEMIC
7
Introduction
In the spring of 2020, many thousands 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 and
government officials, and protest itself becoming an
‘irresponsible’ act? This delicate balancing act, between
exercising fundamental freedoms and preventing the
spread of COVID-19, characterised both individual and
government decision-making during the pandemic.
This resulted in broadly two kinds of government
responses. In some countries, the pandemic presented
the perfect opportunity for autocratising governments
to legitimise the closure of democratic space, presenting
the choice between freedoms and health as binary. Yet
in many other countries, the restrictions on fundamental
freedoms were mostly justified to limit the pandemic.
In such cases, unjustified restrictions resulted from
government uncertainty over the virus’ nature, rather
than an active attempt to close democratic space.
As the distinction blurred between attempts to limit
democratic space and strategies to prevent infection, it
became particularly difficult to assess to what extent the
pandemic measures affected democratic space globally.
As donors and policy-makers around the world are
looking to support post-pandemic recovery in partner
countries, it is essential to understand how democratic
space was affected by the pandemic and how pandemic
recovery plans can contribute to strengthening and
expanding space.
This study highlights the features and trends that marked
democratic space developments during the COVID-19
pandemic. 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, Uganda and Venezuela. 1 This study
also further develops a conceptual framework for
understanding democratic space, initially developed
in a previous study by the European Partnership
for Democracy (EPD) and Netherlands Institute for
Multiparty Democracy (NIMD). 2 The new case studies
provide an opportunity to refine the analytical framework
and deepen our understanding of ‘democratic space’ -
vis-à-vis the conceptual confusion and tensions with the
term ‘civic space’.
This paper first details the conceptual understanding of
democratic space that underpins the research. The next
chapter dives into structural trends in democratic space
during the pandemic. The paper then moves on to take
a closer look at the actors that defended democratic
space during the pandemic. In conclusion, the paper
offers some overall reflections and recommendations on
what the pandemic means for practitioners, the EU and
EU Member States’ policies and programming.
1 5 of the case studies were updates to previously conducted case studies in 2017-2019, namely El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia
and Kenya. These countries were chosen for an updated case study due to their diversity in the kinds of attacks on democratic space and
their geographic spread. 4 other countries - Burundi, Uganda, Venezuela and Colombia - were added because they have very different political
constellations and thus provide insights from different contexts.
2 European Partnership for Democracy & Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy (2020): Thinking democratically: A comprehensive
approach to countering and preventing ‘shrinking’ space. Available here. The research was based on the following country case studies: El
Salvador, Georgia, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Kenya, and Zimbabwe.