People take part in an anti-corruption protest in Kathmandu, Nepal on 8 September 2025. Credit: Navesh Chitrakar/Reuters via Gallo Images

By Mandeep S.Tiwana
NEW YORK, Dec 24 2025 (IPS)

2025 has been a terrible year for democracy. Just over 7 per cent of the world’s population now live in places where the rights to organise, protest and speak out are generally respected, according to the CIVICUS Monitor, a civil society research partnership that measures civic freedoms around the world. This is a sharp drop from over 14 per cent this time last year.

Civic freedoms underpin healthy democracies, and the consequences of this stifling of civil society are apparent. At the end of the first quarter of the 21st century, the world is experiencing 19th century levels of economic inequality. The wealth of the richest 1 per cent is surging while some 8 per cent of the world’s population – over 670 million people – suffer from chronic hunger. Weapons-producing firms, closely intertwined with political elites, are reaping windfall profits as death and destruction rains down in Gaza, Myanmar, Sudan, Ukraine and many other places. It should surprise no one that the political leaders fomenting these conflicts are also squashing civic freedoms to avert questions about their motivations.

From Lima to Los Angeles, Belgrade to Dar es Salaam and Jenin to Jakarta, far too many people are being denied the agency to shape the decisions that impact their lives. Yet these places have also been the site of significant protests against governments this year. Even as authoritarianism appears to be on the march, people are continuing to pour onto the streets to insist on their freedoms. As we speak people in Sofia in Bulgaria are demonstrating in large numbers against endemic corruption which recently forced the government to resign.

History shows that mass demonstrations can lead to major advances. In the 20th century, people’s mobilisations helped achieve women’s right to vote, liberation of colonised peoples and adoption of civil rights legislation to address race-based discrimination. In the 21st century, advances have been made in marriage equality and other LGBTQI+ rights, and in highlighting the climate crisis and economic inequality through protests. But in 2025, the right to protest, precisely because it can be effective, is under assault by authoritarian leaders. Around the world, the detention of protesters is the number one recorded violation of civic freedoms, closely followed by arbitrary detentions of journalists and human rights defenders who expose corruption and rights violations.

This backsliding is now happening in major established democracies. This year, the CIVICUS Monitor downgraded Argentina, France, Germany, Italy and the USA to an ‘obstructed’ civic space rating, meaning the authorities impose significant constraints on the full enjoyment of fundamental rights. This regression is being driven by anti-rights nationalist and populist forces determined to degrade constitutional checks and balances and advance ballot box majoritarianism that denies minorities a fair say in economic, political and social life.

The push to degrade democracy by anti-rights forces now coming to fruition has been many years in the making. It accelerated this year with the return of Donald Trump. His administration immediately withdrew support to international democracy support programmes and instead built links to politicians responsible for crushing civic freedoms and committing grotesque human rights violations. Trump has laid out of the red carpet to El-Salvador’s Nayib Bukele, Hungary’s Victor Orbán, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman, ushering in a new era of values-free might-is-right diplomacy that threatens to undermine decades of painstaking progress achieved by civil society.

The fallout is clear. Many wealthy democratic governments that traditionally fund civil society activities have significantly reduced their contributions. At the same time, they have linked their remaining support for civil society to narrowly defined strategic military and economic interests. In doing so, they have played directly into the hands of powerful authoritarian states such as China, Egypt, Iran, Nicaragua and Venezuela that seek to discredit domestic calls for accountability. Countries including Ecuador and Zimbabwe have introduced laws to limit the ability of civil society organisations to receive international funding.

All these developments are negatively impacting on civil society efforts for equality, peace and social justice. Yet the story of 2025 is also one of persistent resistance, and some successes. The courage demonstrated by Generation Z protesters has inspired people around the world. In Nepal, protests triggered by a social media ban led to the fall of the government, offering hope for a much-needed political reset. In Kenya, young protesters continued to take to the streets to demand political reform despite state violence. In Moldova, a cash-rich disinformation campaign run by a fugitive oligarch failed to sway the course of the national election away from human rights values. In the USA, the number of people joining the No-Kings protests just keeps on growing.

With over 90 per cent of the world’s population living with the institutional denial of full civic freedoms, anti-rights forces must be feeling pretty smug right now. But democratic dissent is brewing, particularly among Generation Z, denied political and economic opportunities but understanding that another world – one more equal, just, peaceful and environmentally sustainable – is possible. It’s far from game over yet, and even in difficult times, people will demand freedoms – and breakthroughs may be just around the corner.

Mandeep S Tiwana is Secretary General of CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Mandeep S.Tiwana
NEW YORK, Sep 23 2025 (IPS)

No leader responsible for mass atrocities enjoys greater impunity on the international stage than Benjamin Netanyahu. This is due to the strange stranglehold of the pro-Israel lobby on the two major political parties in the United States.

Unsurprisingly, the assertion by New York City mayoral candidate and front runner Zohran Mamdani on September 13 that he would order the arrest of Netanyahu if he ever came there, has attracted blowback from within the mainstream political establishments of both the Democratic and Republic parties, as well from extremist right-wing circles.

Legal experts have gone into a tizzy whether a future mayor of New York can arrest the leader of a foreign government. The unjustified blowback apparently in support of Israel’s televised genocide of the Palestinian people flies in the face of facts, basic principles of humanity and the shifting sands of public opinion in the United States.

A high- powered UN Commission of Inquiry led by a judge who investigated the Rwandan genocide of 1994 has recently concluded that Israel has committed genocide – the worst crime under international law – in Gaza.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has a standing arrest warrant against Netanyahu and his former defence minister for using starvation as a weapon of war and for deliberately killing thousands of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. But bizarrely, it’s not Israel’s leaders but ICC judges and prosecutors who are being targeted through sanctions by the Trump administration.

Nevertheless, Netanyahu’s cruel war on Gaza is rapidly eroding American public support for Israel. According to the Pew Research Center’s latest findings more than half of American adults now possess an unfavourable opinion of Israel. Just 32 percent have confidence in Netanyahu himself.

However, the negative impacts of the damage done to American democracy by Netanyahu and his hardline supporters will linger on. Under the pretext of containing anti-Israeli sentiment, the Trump administration has attacked universities that were the site of sustained pro-Palestinian protests including Columbia and Harvard.

Academic freedom is a cherished American ideal but that hasn’t prevented the administration from threatening colleges and universities with federal funding cuts and placing restrictions on foreign students if they don’t toe the government’s line. Sadly, several pro-Palestinian student protest leaders have been arbitrarily detained in direct repudiation of constitutional protections on the freedom of speech and the right to peaceful protest drawing criticism from UN experts.

Many of us in civil society have been pointing out for some time that the leaders of the two major political parties in the United States are so beholden to the moneyed interests of their donors that they have become out of touch with the needs and aspirations of the American people.

Indeed, Israel’s belligerence in continuing atrocities on the civilian population in the Occupied Palestinian Territories of Gaza and the West Bank has been sharply rebuked by progressive groups like Jewish Voices for Peace and Jews for Racial and Economic Justice who support a new wave of politicians such as Mahmud Mamdani who are willing to stand up for human rights.

A generation of politicians who represent a more forward looking and inclusive vision for the United States and who enjoy widespread support in New York and beyond such as Alexandria Ocasio Cortez have rallied to Mamdani’s side.

Mamdani’s win in the Democratic primaries for the New York mayoral election was powered by a diverse coalition of supporters in America’s most diverse and vibrant city. He continues to be the front runner for the mayoral election slated on November 4.

So far, his focus has been on the issues that matter to most of the people of New York, such as the high cost of living and the ever- widening gap between millionaires and the rest of the country fueled by pro-big business policies and tax cuts.

Funnily, in blatant negation of diplomatic protocol, Netanyahu has jumped into the political fray by dubbing Mamdani’s proposals for New York City’s mayoral elections as ‘nonsense’.

Notably, Netanyahu is planning to come to New York to address the UN General Assembly on 26 September. When he speaks at the UN, it’s usually to disparage the institution, which will be marking 80 years of its founding from the ashes of war and the horrors of the holocaust.

Last year, a large number of delegates walked out of the UN hall when he came on stage. This year, Netanyahu emboldened by Trump’s support will try his best to repudiate the findings of the UN Commission of Inquiry on genocide in Gaza. Whether the delegates will pay attention is arguable.

However, one thing is certain. If Netanyahu attempts to go on to the streets of New York to campaign against Mamdani he will likely be met by mass protests.

Mandeep S. Tiwana is a human rights lawyer and Secretary General of global civil society alliance, CIVICUS. He is presently based in New York.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Mandeep S.Tiwana
NEW YORK, Aug 2 2025 (IPS)

Successive United States governments have prided themselves on being governed by the Constitution of 1788. The First Amendment introduced in 1791 lays the foundations for secularism, respect for fundamental freedoms, and the right to seek redress of grievances.

Notably, presidential administrations since the Second World War and through the Cold War and even during the so-called ‘War on Terror’ have sought to model the United States as a beacon of democracy. They positioned the Constitution of the United States as a revered document that guarantees civic freedoms which enable people to come together freely, publicly express themselves, and organise to take action to advance their issues.

But today, that image is unravelling. The United States is on the CIVICUS Monitor July 2025 Watchlist along-with Kenya, El Salvador, Indonesia, Serbia, and Turkey. None of these countries are considered bastions of democracy. The CIVICUS Monitor is a civil society research collaboration that measures civic freedoms around the world. The reasons for including the United States in this list are as troubling as they are undeniable.

Protests Confronted with Military Might

The First Amendment guarantees the right of the people to assemble peaceably. Yet in June this year, President Trump personally threatened protestors and ordered the deployment of 700 Marines and 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles. This was a blatant intimidation tactic to keep people from coming to the streets to protest violent and arbitrary implementation of immigration regulations by his administration.

Although, there were a few isolated incidents of violence during the demonstrations, most of the protests were peaceful. The actions of the Trump administration went against the advice of California’s Governor. Sending military personnel into city streets to silence dissent is a common tactic employed by despots. It’s something that takes place in authoritarian states ruled by dictators not celebrated democracies.

The administration has also violated due process rights of foreign-born student protest leaders and advocates speaking out for the realisation of fundamental freedoms and dignity of the Palestinian people in the face of Israeli occupation. Prominent cases include those of Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi and Rumeysa Ozturk.

Press Freedom in Peril

The First Amendment also protects freedom of speech and of the press. American presidents however powerful have generally respected the role of the media to hold them accountable.

Today, journalists representing independent media outlets are routinely insulted and subjected to derogatory language by the White House press corps, the President and senior officials. Journalists covering protests have faced rubber bullets, arbitrary arrests, and legal intimidation. Salvadoran journalist, Mario Guevara, a legal resident of the United States was detained while livestreaming a peaceful protest. He was then arbitrarily transferred to immigration enforcement custody.

Meanwhile, the Trump Administration’s signature ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act’ slashed $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This effectively defunds PBS, NPR, and independent local stations committed to non-partisan fact-based reporting. President Trump is also using lawsuits against media houses and entering into questionable settlements to silence criticism. These actions are not isolated; they’re part of a systematic effort to prevent media scrutiny and deny people the ability to form opinions based on truthful journalism.

Civil Society in the Crosshairs

The Constitution doesn’t specially mention nonprofits, but the US Supreme Court has declared that First Amendment rights enshrine freedom of association. That right is being eroded in insidious ways which are unprecedented in modern American history. Through the ages, non-profits have been an essential part of associational life in the United States. The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” slashes billions in nonprofit funding over the next decade. The law guts support that civil society organisations render to some of the most excluded people and communities in the country.

The rapid dismantling of USAID democracy support programs around the world have strengthened the hands of authoritarian governments vehemently opposed to civil society groups that speak truth to power or uncover high level corruption. Robust civil society organisations are an essential component of democracy.

Democracy in Decline

The United States is currently rated as “narrowed” on the CIVICUS Monitor’s rating scale. It’s a designation for countries where civic freedoms exist in theory but aren’t fully upheld in practice. The loss of civility in public life, extreme political polarisation, military response to protests, attacks on journalism, and defunding of civil society are not just policy choices; they are breaches of well-established constitutional premises and the very promise of American democracy. These actions mock the sacrifices of revolutionaries, suffragettes, civil rights activists and civic minded individuals who laid the foundations for American democracy.

To be clear, today, the license to exercise civic freedoms remains uneven. While critics of the administration are being put under pressure, groups aligned to the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement are having a free run. On its first day in office, the Trump Administration pardoned over 1500 violent protestors who were part of a mob that attacked police officers and sought to intimidate Members of Congress. They were convicted by the courts for storming the House of People in January 2021 with the aim of disrupting the peaceful transfer of power, which is the most American of traditions.

Picking who gets to exercise their constitutional rights does not behove a responsible administration. It erodes the very foundations of justice. The Constitution of the United States is a living document meant to safeguard the rights of all people, not just those close to power. When a government treats peaceful protest as rebellion, journalism as subversion, and civil society as a threat, it forfeits its claim to democratic leadership. The world is watching in dismay. And so are we.

Mandeep S. Tiwana is Secretary General of global civil society alliance, CIVICUS.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Jesselina Rana and Mandeep S.Tiwana
NEW YORK, May 5 2025 (IPS)

Climate change is threatening to engulf small island states such as Maldives and the Marshall Islands. Gender apartheid is still practiced in theocratic states such as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. War crimes and genocide are taking place in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Sudan.

Hunger looms large in the Congo and Yemen. People continue to be arbitrarily imprisoned in places as far apart as El-Salvador and Eritrea. Russia continues to violate Ukraine’s territorial integrity while China and the United States look the other way despite being permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Even a casual observer can concede that the UN’s mission to maintain peace and security, protect human rights and promote social progress along-with respect for international law is in crisis.

As the United Nations approaches its 80th anniversary this October, a pivotal question looms: Who should lead it into its next era? Surely, in a world impacted by multiple intersecting crises, the answer cannot be business as usual. After nearly eight decades, nine Secretary-Generals, and zero leaders from civil society—let alone a woman—the time for a transformative shift is now.

A movement is underway to demand a visionary Secretary-General who embodies feminist, principled, and courageous leadership. We need a world leader who will boldly stand up for human rights and ensure the inclusion of voices that have for too long been pushed to the margins, even as the UN faces questions about its financial sustainability.

Members of the Sub-commission on the Status of Women, from Lebanon, Poland, Denmark, Dominican Republic and India, prepare for a press conference at Hunter College in New York on 14 May 1946. Credit: UN Photo

Notably, since its inception the UN has been presided over by men, which is less than representative of the global community that the UN serves. Appointing a woman as Secretary-General would not only break this historical pattern but signal a commitment to gender equality and inspire women and girls worldwide, demonstrating that the highest levels of international leadership are accessible to all, regardless of gender. 92 states have already expressed support for a woman Secretary General.

The current Secretary General, Antonio Guterres is due to step down at end of December 2026 upon completion of his second term. The UN Charter mandates the appointment of the head of the UN by the General Assembly following the recommendation of the Security Council. Essentially, 9 out of 15 members of the Security Council must agree on the final recommendation to the General Assembly which then makes a decision on the final candidate through a majority vote.

All permanent members of the UN Security Council have the right to veto any candidate before a recommendation is made to the UN General Assembly. A lot of behind the scenes political wrangling takes place at this stage to select a candidate who will be acceptable to powerful states that seek to exert control over the UN, which is why the 1 for 8 billion campaign are demanding a process that is fair, transparent, inclusive, feminist and rigorous.

It’s no secret that the UN’s overly bureaucratic approaches and the inclination of its leadership to play safe in the face of multiple intersecting crises, including glaring violations of the UN Charter by powerful states are pushing the institution from being ineffective to becoming irrelevant.

Although many within the UN lay the blame on powerful states for co-opting the institution to assert narrow national interests and for not paying their financial dues, the problems run much deeper.

Ironically, civil society actors who work with the UN to fulfill its mission are being sidelined. In last year’s negotiations on the UN’s Pact for the Future and in current Financing for Development conversations, civil society delegates have struggled to find space to have their voices adequately included.

Many of us in civil society who have supported the UN through decades in the common quest to create more peaceful, just, equal and sustainable societies are deeply concerned about the current state of affairs.

Civil society actors have been instrumental in shaping some of the UN’s signature achievements such as the Paris Agreement on climate, the universal Sustainable Development Goals and the landmark Treaty on Enforced Disappearances. But diplomats representing repressive regimes are increasingly seeking to limit civil society participation.

These tactics are not isolated acts. They represent a coordinated, global assault on civic space and democratic norms. They are also contributory factors to the erosion of public trust in multilateral bodies which is threatening the legitimacy of the UN itself.

Tellingly, the long-standing demand for the appointment of a civil society envoy at the UN to streamline civil society participation across the UN system and to drive the UN’s outreach to civil society beyond major UN hubs has gone unheeded by the UN’s leadership.

Over the last decade and a half, civil society organisations and activists have faced a relentless assault from authoritarian-populist governments. The situation is alarming: latest findings of the CIVICUS Monitor, a participatory research collaboration, affirm that over 70% of the global population now live under repressive civic space conditions.

Across continents, activists are being illegally surveilled, arbitrarily imprisoned, and physically attacked. The right to peaceful protest is being quashed even in democracies. In far too many countries, independent civil society organisations are being dismantled and prevented from accessing funding. Just in the last two months, countries as diverse as Peru and Slovakia have introduced repressive anti-NGO laws.

As civic space closes, major financial supporters —from the US and UK to several EU states—are slashing official development assistance, thereby depriving civil society of crucial resources to resist these restrictions. A recent CIVICUS survey confirms that frontline efforts in health, civic engagement, and human rights are among the hardest hit.

The next Secretary-General must meet the crisis head-on. They must make the defence of civic space a strategic imperative. That means speaking out against governments that silence dissent and ensuring safe and meaningful participation for civil society at all levels. An effective way to do this would be to report on the implementation of the 2020 UN guidance note on civic space and accelerate its mainstreaming across the UN’s agencies and offices around the world.

Civil society remains a resilient engine for global progress. From climate justice and anti-corruption work to feminist organising, civil society groups often lead where governments and multilateral institutions falter. The UN would be well served by a Secretary General who sees civil society less as an after-thought and more as a co-creator of global policy who embodies feminist leadership principles and who understands that multilateralism cannot function without grassroots engagement—that justice, sustainability, and peace are not top-down aspirations, but bottom-up imperatives.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Credit: United Nations

By Mandeep S.Tiwana
NEW YORK, Dec 10 2024 (IPS)

Today is International Human Rights Day, Normally, it should be an occasion to celebrate the work of those who strive to create peaceful, just, equal and sustainable societies. But conditions for human rights defenders and their organisations to operate freely are extremely challenging around the world.

Almost three quarters of the world’s people live in states that severely constrain civic freedoms. These are the latest findings from the CIVICUS Monitor, a cross-continental research collaboration between over twenty civil society organisations.

Despite enormous technological and cultural advancements claimed by humankind the overwhelming majority of the world’s population are being actively denied agency to shape the decisions that impact their lives. Major restrictions in law and practice on the fundamental civic freedoms of peaceful assembly, association and expression are putting journalists and civil society activists at serious risk of persecution when they expose high level corruption or critique the actions of powerful decision makers.

Civic space conditions in some 30 countries where over a quarter of the world’s population live are so poor that even the slightest hint of dissent against those who hold power can get one thrown into prison for a long time or even killed. Such countries include Afghanistan, China, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Sudan among others.

This year, Eswatini, Ethiopia and the Occupied Palestinian Territories of Gaza and the West Bank have been downgraded to the worst ‘closed’ rating on the CIVICUS Monitor due to an acceleration in repression there.

As a human rights defender it worries me that countries with proud histories of resisting colonial oppression and with hard won constitutional commitments to democratic principles such as India, Kenya, Mexico and the Philippines have ended up being placed in the second worst ‘repressed’ category on the CIVICUS Monitor.

As a development advocate who campaigned for the adoption of an ambitious set of universal Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, it concerns me that governments are deliberately limiting the ability of civil society organisations to work with them to create more equal and fairer societies.

Civic space restrictions negatively impact the quest for transparency, accountability and participation in public affairs. The Sustainable Development Goals include guarantees on access to information and fundamental freedoms as well as on responsive, inclusive and participatory decision making, which are essential for public spirited individuals and organisations to push for transformative changes in the political, social and economic spheres.

But CIVICUS Monitor researchers have recorded thousands of restrictions on the freedom of expression in 2024 including physical attacks on journalists and civil society activists merely for doing their work in the public interest.

Atefeh Rangriz, a defender of worker’s and women’s rights in Iran is currently languishing in prison on trumped up national security related charges. Guatemalan journalist Jose Ruben Zamora continues to be persecuted through the courts for exposing deep networks of patronage that exist among political and economic elites in that country.

Their cases are illustrative of the enormous challenge of thousands of journalists and civil society activists unjustly imprisoned around the world in countries as disparate as Belarus, Egypt, Israel and Vietnam.

The most recent CIVICUS Monitor Watchlist, released this September, draws attention to deterioration in civic space conditions in Argentina, Azerbaijan, Thailand and Zimbabwe, all of which are ruled by erratic authoritarian leaders. Because global civic space conditions are so challenging, including in several powerful states, the appetite of the international community to consistently call out flagrant violations of international law standards has been severely hamstrung in recent times.

It’s thus absurd that Azerbaijan, a petrostate with closed civic space, hosted the COP29 climate summit this year in an attempt to greenwash its reputation. The previous two COP summits were held in countries with equally appalling records: United Arab Emirates and Egypt. The election of Donald Trump, an avowed supporter of the fossil fuel industry, as the next president of the United States does not portend well for climate causes or for civic freedoms given his adulation for authoritarian leaders.

Climate justice, environmental and land rights activists are facing persecution in far too many countries for exercising their right to peaceful assembly. Earlier this year, five Just Stop Oil activists received sentences ranging from four to five years in prison in the United Kingdom for planning a non-violent protest action by blocking a motorway in 2022.

In Uganda, protestors were arrested merely for seeking to deliver a petition to the authorities outlining the adverse effects of an oil project including environmental degradation, land loss and violations of community rights. In September, Juan López, Honduran community leader and advocate for the rights of the Guapinol River, was assassinated despite calls for his protection.

Just as anti-apartheid protestors faced pushback in the 1980s, artists, students and academics have been targeted in several western democracies for advocating for the rights and dignity of the Palestinian people. It’s now forbidden to wear a keffiyeh within Canada’s Ontario state’s legislative assembly and there have been attempts to censor pro-Palestinian groups in Germany, the Netherlands and the USA. In Australia, four writers who had publicly opposed Israel’s war on Gaza had their workshops’ contracts terminated with the State Library of Victoria.

Nearly 10% of the total civic space violations documented globally in 2024 by CIVICUS Monitor researchers either took place in the Occupied Palestinian Territories or were perpetrated against those expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people. Despite this, throughout 2024 people continued to pour out onto the streets to express solidarity with beleaguered Palestinians. This in itself is extraordinary.

Even if global civic space conditions were mostly unwelcoming this year, civil society actions led to some remarkable victories for rights and justice. Greece became the first overwhelmingly Christian Orthodox country to legalise same-sex marriage while recognising the rights of same sex couples to adopt children. Thailand broke ground in Southeast Asia by passing a marriage equality bill in May 2024, making it the first country in the region to legalise same-sex marriage.

In the Czech Republic, civil society efforts led to a landmark reform in rape laws, now classifying any non-consensual sexual act as rape, removing the need for proof of force and strengthening protections for victims. In Kazakhstan, in response to a high-profile murder trial, lawmakers swiftly introduced new legislation that re-established criminal penalties for battery and enhanced protections for domestic violence survivors.

In Poland, a bill passed in February 2024 made emergency contraception accessible without a prescription, reversing a restrictive 2017 law and marking a significant win for womens’ rights over their bodies.

Moreover, people continued to exercise their protest rights across the globe this year. In Bangladesh, the longstanding oppressive government led by Sheikh Hasina was forced to step down following persistent public demonstrations against its regressive actions. In Venezuela, people outvoted the incumbent authoritarian government of Nicholas Maduro at the polls but his regime ended up rigging the election results. However, this doesn’t mean the struggle for democracy in Venezuela has been permanently suppressed.

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice,” said Dr.Martin Luther King Jr. As these examples show, despite pervasive repression, the impulse to overcome oppression remains alive. Gains made through sustained civil society resistance through 2024 offer us hope that no matter how powerful autocratic forces may be, there will always be an undercurrent of civil society ready to weather the storm and strive for a better world for all.

Mandeep S. Tiwana is the Interim Co-Secretary General. CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, addresses the General Debate of the General Assembly’s 75th session September 2020. Credit: UN Photo/Rick Bajornas

By Mandeep S.Tiwana
NEW YORK, Nov 8 2024 (IPS)

On the day following the US election, UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres issued a brief statement commending the people of the United States for their active participation in the democratic process. He wisely omitted mention that the election of Donald J. Trump – who attempted to overturn the people’s mandate by inciting an insurrection in 2021 – is a major setback for the UN’s worldwide quest to advance human rights and the rule of law. Trump is a self-avowed admirer of authoritarian strongmen like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Hungary’s Viktor Orban who disdain international norms that the UN seeks to uphold.

Unsurprisingly, questions posed to the UN Secretary General’s spokesperson, Stéphane Dujarric, in a press conference on November 6, ranged from what will be Trump’s response to the war in Ukraine to potential funding cuts that might come with the new US administration to whether the UN has contingency plans ready for when Trump takes office.

The US plays an outsized role in global affairs. Therefore, any changes in policy in Washington impact the whole world. As someone who bears responsibility for stewarding a global civil society alliance, it worries me what a second Trump presidency will unleash.

Even without Trump in power we are living in a world where wars are being conducted with complete disregard for the rules; corrupt billionaires are dictating public policy for their benefit; and greed induced environmental degradation is putting us on a path to climate catastrophe. Hard fought gains on gender justice are in danger of being rolled back.

The first Trump administration showed disdain for the UN Human Rights Council and pulled the US out of vital global commitments such as the Paris Agreement to combat climate change. It restricted support for civil society groups around the world and targeted those that sought to promote sexual and reproductive rights of women. Promotion of democracy and human rights are key pillars of US foreign policy.

It’s deeply concerning that when disinformation and misinformation have assumed pandemic level proportions, the majority of the US electorate have cast their vote in favour of a candidate who ran his campaign on divisive dog whistles, half-truths and outright lies. These tactics have deepened fissures in an already polarized United States.

Families countrywide were left devastated by Trump’s negligence and COVID denialism as president which resulted in tens of thousands of Americans dying of avoidable infections. His administration’s immigration detention and deportation policies instilled fear in minority communities. This time Trump has vowed to deport millions of people.

Trump’s stances on abortion rights have caused women immeasurable suffering in several US states that have introduced laws to ban the procedure. He has promised to accelerate harmful fossil fuel extraction and undoubtedly views gender justice advocates, environmental defenders and migrant rights activists as a threat to his power.

Given the stated predilections of Trump and his advisors, opposition politicians, activists and journalists exposing corruption and rights violations are likely to be at risk of enhanced surveillance, intimidation and persecution by the new administration.

At the international level, Trump’s election casts a pall over efforts to ensure accountability for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocidal actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Sudan and Ukraine due to his tacit support for authoritarian leaders in Israel, Russia and the United Arab Emirates, all of whom are fueling conflicts and causing havoc abroad. A future Trump administration could try to starve the UN of funding to erode the rules based international order, emboldening autocrats.

Even if things appear bleak today, it’s important to remember that there are hundreds and thousands of civil society activists and organisations around the world who remain steadfast in their resolve to celebrate diversity and promote justice and equality. To imagine the future we sometimes have to take heart from the past.

India’s freedom struggle, South Africa’s struggle against apartheid and the civil rights movement in the United States weren’t won by authoritarian leaders but by brave and determined individuals united in solidarity and determined to resist oppression for as long as it takes.

There is a lesson here for civil society in the US that higher American ideals are worth standing up for and will outlive any sitting president.

Mandeep S. Tiwana is Interim Co-Secretary General of CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance. He also serves as CIVICUS representative to the United Nations.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: UN Photo/Rick Bajornas

By Mandeep S.Tiwana
NEW YORK, Apr 22 2024 (IPS)

Today, the spectre of a major regional conflict, and even a possible nuclear conflagration, looms large in the Middle East. Despite stark warnings issued by the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, the multilateral system is struggling to resolve the very challenges it was supposed to address: conflict, impoverishment and oppression. In a deeply divided world, this September’s Summit of the Future offers a rare chance to fix international cooperation and make good on gaps in global governance.

The problem is, too few people and civil society organisations, outside UN circles, even know the Summit is happening. This is characteristic of a lack of broad consultation. Things started poorly with limited time and opportunities for civil society to provide inputs last December into the zero draft of the Pact for the Future, which is supposed to be a blueprint for international cooperation in the 21st century.

The zero draft, released in January 2024, lacks the ambition many hoped would be on show to tackle the enormity of the challenges before us. It included just one mention of the role of civil society and nothing about civic space, even though growing restrictions on fundamental freedoms are severely impeding the transparency, accountability and participation needed to realise the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – the set of ambitious but largely unrealised universal commitments the Summit intends to reaffirm.

To be clear, the Summit’s co-facilitators, Germany and Namibia, are in an unenviable position, having to balance the demands of states that want the process to be purely intergovernmental and others that see value in civil society’s engagement. Some don’t see any role for civil society: in February, a handful of states led by Belarus sent a letter to the Special Committee on the UN Charter questioning the legitimacy of civil society organisations. If their demands were acceded to, the UN would miss the innovation and reach that civil society participation brings to the table.

Next month, the UN is hosting a major civil society conference in Nairobi with the aim of providing a platform for civil society to contribute ideas to the Summit of the Future. But, with barely a month between the selection of applicants and the hosting of the conference, it remains to be seen how many civil society representatives, particularly from smaller organisations in the global south, will be able to make it.

There remains a need for the UN to take on board the Unmute Civil Society recommendations, which include a call for the appointment of a civil society envoy. Such an envoy could drive the UN’s outreach to civil society beyond its hubs. With many finding the institution remote, an envoy could champion better and more consistent participation of people and civil society across the UN’s sprawling agencies and offices. So far, civil society engagement with the UN remains deeply uneven and dependent on the culture and leadership of various UN departments and forums.

The Summit can only benefit from civil society engagement if it’s to achieve it aims, particularly as many conflicts are raging around the world, including in Gaza, Myanmar, Sudan, Ukraine and elsewhere. Many of civil society’s reform ideas are included in the UN Secretary-General’s New Agenda for Peace, which will be deliberated at the Summit, including nuclear disarmament, strengthening preventative diplomacy and prioritising women’s participation in peace efforts.

There’s also an urgent need to address the soaring levels of debt many global south countries face, which is diverting public spending away from essential services and social protections into debt servicing. Civil society backs efforts such as the Bridgetown Initiative to secure commitments from wealthy countries on debt restructuring and debt cancellation for those countries facing a repayment crisis. But civil society needs to be included to help shape plans, because if financing for development negotiations don’t include guarantees for civic space and civil society participation there’s no way of ensuring that public funds benefit people in need. Instead, autocratic regimes could use them to shore up repressive state apparatuses and networks of corruption and patronage.

Civil society further calls for reforms in the international financial architecture. These include demands to bring decisions by the G20 group of powerful economies into the ambit of the UN’s accountability framework, and to equitably distribute shares and decision-making at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, presently controlled by a few highly industrialised countries.

But it’s unclear how many of civil society’s transformative proposals for global governance reforms will end up in the final outcomes of the Summit of the Future. So far, there’s been limited transparency in relation to UN member state negotiations, records and compilation texts, despite civil society having shown its commitment by making over 400 written submissions to the Pact for the Future process.

Troublingly, few governments have consulted nationally with civil society groups on their positions for the Summit of the Future negotiations. If these trends continue, the international community will miss a key chance to make life better for future generations. It isn’t too late to robustly include people and civil society in the process. The aims of the Summit are too important.

Mandeep S. Tiwana is CIVICUS Chief Officer for Evidence and Engagement and representative to the UN in New York.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres addresses the 22nd session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues at the General Assembly Hall of the United Nations headquarters in New York City on 17 April 2023. Credit: Ed Jones/AFP via Getty Images

By Mandeep S.Tiwana
NEW YORK, Sep 7 2023 (IPS)

This September, world leaders and public policy advocates from around the world will descend on New York for the UN General Assembly. Alongside conversations on peace and security, global development and climate change, progress – or the lack of it – on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is expected to take centre-stage. A major SDG Summit will be held on 18 and 19 September. The UN hopes that it will serve as a ‘rallying cry to recharge momentum for world leaders to come together to reflect on where we stand and resolve to do more’. But are the world’s leaders in a mood to uphold the UN’s purpose, and can the UN’s leadership rise to the occasion by resolutely addressing destructive behaviours?

Sadly, the world is facing an acute crisis of leadership. In far too many countries authoritarian leaders have seized power through a combination of populist political discourse, outright repression and military coups. Our findings on the CIVICUS Monitor – a participatory research platform that measures civic freedoms in every country – show that 85% of the world’s population live in places where serious attacks on basic fundamental freedoms to organise, speak out and protest are taking place. Respect for these freedoms is essential so that people and civil society organisations can have a say in inclusive decision making.

UN undermined

The UN Charter begins with the words, ‘We the Peoples’ and a resolve to save future generations from the scourge of war. Its ideals, such as respect for human rights and the dignity of every person, are being eroded by powerful states that have introduced slippery concepts such as ‘cultural relativism’ and ‘development with national characteristics’. The consensus to seek solutions to global challenges through the UN appears to be at breaking point. As we speak hostilities are raging in Ukraine, Sudan, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Sahel region even as millions of people reel from the negative consequences of protracted conflicts and oppression in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Myanmar, Syria and Yemen, to name a few.

Article 1 of the UN Charter underscores the UN’s role in harmonising the actions of nations towards the attainment of common ends, including in relation to solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character, and to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. But in a time of eye-watering inequality within and between countries, big economic decisions affecting people and the planet are not being made collectively at the UN but by the G20 group of the world’s biggest economies, whose leaders are meeting prior to the UN General Assembly to make economic decisions with ramifications for all countries.

Economic and development cooperation policies for a large chunk of the globe are also determined through the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Established in 1961, the OECD comprises 38 countries with a stated commitment to democratic values and market-based economics. Civil society has worked hard to get the OECD to take action on issues such as fair taxation, social protection and civic space.

More recently, the BRICS – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – grouping of countries that together account for 40 per cent of the world’s population and a quarter of the globe’s GDP are seeking to emerge as a counterweight to the OECD. However, concerns remain about the values that bind this alliance. At its recent summit in South Africa six new members were admitted, four of which – Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – are ruled by totalitarian governments with a history of repressing civil society voices. This comes on top of concerns that China and Russia are driving the BRICS agenda despite credible allegations that their governments have committed crimes against humanity.

The challenge before the UN’s leadership this September is to find ways to bring coherence and harmony to decisions being taken at the G20, OECD, BRICS and elsewhere to serve the best interests of excluded people around the globe. A focus on the SDGs by emphasising their universality and indivisibility can provide some hope.

SDGs off-track

The adoption of the SDGs in 2015 was a groundbreaking moment. The 17 ambitious SDGs and their 169 targets have been called the greatest ever human endeavour to create peaceful, just, equal and sustainable societies. The SDGs include promises to tackle inequality and corruption, promote women’s equality and empowerment, support inclusive and participatory governance, ensure sustainable consumption and production, usher in rule of law and catalyse effective partnerships for development.

But seven years on the SDGs are seriously off-track. The UN Secretary-General’s SDG progress report released this July laments that the promise to ‘leave no one behind’ is in peril. As many as 30 per cent of the targets are reported to have seen no progress or worse to have regressed below their 2015 baseline. The climate crisis, war in Ukraine, a weak global economy and the COVID-19 pandemic are cited as some of the reasons why progress is lacking.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is pushing for an SDG stimulus plan to scale up financing to the tune of US$500 billion. It remains to be seen how successful this would be given the self-interest being pursued by major powers that have the financial resources to contribute. Moreover, without civic participation and guarantees for enabled civil societies, there is a high probability that SDG stimulus funds could be misused by authoritarian governments to reinforce networks of patronage and to shore up repressive state apparatuses.

Also up for discussion at the UN General Assembly will be plans for a major Summit for the Future in 2024 to deliver the UN Secretary-General’s Our Common Agenda report, released in 2021. This proposes among other things the appointment of a UN Envoy for Future Generations, an upgrade of key UN institutions, digital cooperation across the board and boosting partnerships to drive access and inclusion at the UN. But with multilateralism stymied by hostility and divisions among big powers on the implementation of internationally agreed norms, achieving progress on this agenda implies a huge responsibility on the UN’s leadership to forge consensus while speaking truth to power and challenging damaging behaviours by states and their leaders.

The UN’s leadership have found its voice on the issue of climate change. Secretary-General Guterres has been remarkably candid about the negative impacts of the fossil fuel industry and its supporters. This July, he warned that ‘The era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived’. Similar candour is required to call out the twin plagues of authoritarianism and populism which are causing immense suffering to people around the world while exacerbating conflict, inequality and climate change.

The formation of the UN as the conscience of the world in 1945 was an exercise in optimism and altruism. This September that spirit will be needed more than ever to start creating a better world for all, and to prove the UN’s value.

Mandeep S. Tiwana is chief officer for evidence and engagement + representative to the UN headquarters at CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Protests in Myanmar. Credit: CIVICUS

By Mandeep S.Tiwana
NEW YORK, Mar 15 2023 (IPS)

On 29 and 30 March, the US government, in partnership with Costa Rica, Netherlands, South Korea and Zambia, will co-host the second virtual Summit for Democracy. Several elected leaders and state representatives will come together to highlight achievements in advancing democratic principles.

This online global gathering intends to ‘demonstrate how democracies deliver for their citizens and are best equipped to address the world’s most pressing challenges’. Yet evidence gathered by civil society researchers indicates that all is not well with the state of democracy worldwide. Civic space, a key ingredient of democracy, is becoming increasingly contested.

Pundits have long argued that democracy is not just about majoritarian rule and nominally free elections. The essence of democracy lies in something deeper: the ability of people – especially the excluded – to organise, participate and communicate without hindrance to influence society, politics and economics.

Civic space is underpinned by the three fundamental freedoms of association, peaceful assembly and expression, with the state having responsibility to defend and safeguard these freedoms.

Yet, as revealed by the 2022 People Power Under Attack report from the CIVICUS Monitor, a collaboration of over 20 research organisations across the globe, states themselves are the biggest violators of civic freedoms.

Among the top violations recorded globally are harassment and intimidation of activists, journalists and civil society organisations to deter them from their human rights work; arbitrary detentions of protesters as punishment for speaking out against those in power; and restrictive laws designed to prevent people mobilising and exercising their fundamental civic freedoms.

Shockingly, two billion people – 28 per cent of the world’s population – live in the 27 countries where civic space is absolutely shut down, where mere expressions of democratic dissent can mean prison, exile or death.

These countries categorised as ‘closed’ on the CIVICUS Monitor include powerful authoritarian states such as China, Egypt, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates, as well as well as dictatorships with one-party or one-family rule such as Afghanistan, Belarus, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Syria and Turkmenistan, among others.

However, the problem extends beyond autocracies. Worryingly, there’s been a perceptible decline in civic space in democracies. In the UK, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 gives police unprecedented powers to restrict protests on grounds of preventing serious ‘distress, annoyance, inconvenience or loss of amenity’.

A deeply draconian public order bill to further limit protests in response to civil disobedience activities of climate and environmental activists is also on the cards. As a result, the country has been downgraded to the ‘obstructed’ category on the CIVICUS Monitor.

Civic space in India, which calls itself the world’s biggest democracy, is under attack, with continuing intimidation of independent media, think tanks and civil society groups that oppose serious human rights violations and high-level corruption.

Tactics include raids on office premises of organisations on flimsy grounds and denial of permission to access international funding. Prominent victims include the BBC, Centre for Policy Research and Oxfam India.

Tunisia, where democracy was until recently starting to grow roots, is now experiencing severe regression due to the high-handed actions of President Kais Saied, who has assumed emergency powers, undermined judicial independence and misused the law enforcement machinery to persecute critics.

India and Tunisia are now both in the second lowest category, ‘repressed’, on the CIVICUS Monitor.

Despite continuing civic space impediments, people are speaking out: the CIVICUS Monitor recorded significant protests in over 130 countries in 2022. The rising costs of food and fuel have sparked mobilisations even in authoritarian contexts.

Protests initially driven by people’s financial pain have tended to grow quickly into mass mobilisations against regressive economic policies, corruption by political leaders and systemic injustice.

Women have often been at the forefront of protests, as seen in Iran, where a brave mobilisation to demand rights has seen thousands of protesters ruthlessly persecuted through mass imprisonment, police brutality and targeted executions.

The gendered nature of repression against women and LGBTQI+ protesters seeking equal rights remains a sadly persistent reality.

However, in the midst of civic space regressions, some successes spurred by civil society action have also come. In Honduras, a group of water and environmental rights activists called the Guapinol defenders were released in February 2022 after two and a half years of pretrial detention following a concerted global campaign calling for an end to their unjust imprisonment.

In Sri Lanka, mass protests led to the resignation in July 2022 of corrupt authoritarian president Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who presided over widespread economic mismanagement and civic space restrictions; however, since then the old guard has reasserted its control over government, resuming repressive tactics to undermine constitutional guarantees, pointing to the need for continuous vigilance over civic space.

Some countries have seen significant improvements in civic space conditions following elections and political shifts, including Chile and the USA. Both countries have moved from the ‘obstructed’ to ‘narrowed’ category on the CIVICUS Monitor.

In Chile, initiatives by President Gabriel Boric’s government to provide reparations for human rights abuses and establish a framework to protect activists and journalists have contributed to an improvement in civic freedoms.

In the US, new policies by the Biden administration to strengthen police accountability, workplace organising and humanitarian assistance, as well as the adoption of a less adversarial position towards independent news outlets, are key reasons for the upgrade.

Nevertheless, civic space remains contested globally. Our research shows that just 3.2 per cent of the world’s population live in the 38 countries rated as ‘open’, where states actively enable and safeguard the enjoyment of civic space.

The scale of global civic space challenges is enormous, and the price paid by civic space advocates can be heavy. In January, human rights lawyer and democracy activist, Thulani Maseko, was gunned down at his home in Eswatini. His killers continue to roam free.

The need to safeguard civic space is great. Many of us in civil society hope that this month’s Summit for Democracy will help build international resolve to recognise civic space challenges and catalyse action to end impunity.

Mandeep S. Tiwana is chief programmes officer at the global civil society alliance, CIVICUS. The People Power Under Attack 2022 report collates findings from the CIVICUS Monitor which rates civic space conditions in 197 countries and territories along five categories: open, narrowed, obstructed, repressed and closed.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Protesters in Washington, DC, march against the alleged killing of Uyghur Muslims. June 2022. Credit: Unsplash/Kuzzat Altay

By Mandeep S.Tiwana
NEW YORK, Oct 3 2022 (IPS)

This week is a momentous one for the world’s premier human rights body. At stake is a resolution to decide whether the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva can hold a debate on a recently released UN report.

The report concludes that rights violations by China’s government in its Xinjiang region ‘may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity’.

Unsurprisingly, China’s government is doing everything in its power to scotch plans for a debate on the report’s contents. Its tactics include intimidating smaller states, spreading disinformation and politicising genuine human rights concerns – the very thing the Human Rights Council was set up to overcome.

The historic report, which affirms that the rights of Xinjiang’s Uyghur Muslim population are being violated through an industrial-level programme of mass incarceration, systemic torture and sexual violence, attracted huge controversy before it was released on 31 August 2022, minutes before the end of the term of the outgoing High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet.

The report was supposedly ready in September 2021 but so great was the pressure exerted by the Chinese state that it took almost another year for it to be aired. Absurdly, the 46-page report includes a 122 page annex in the form of a rebuttal issued by China, rejecting the findings and calling into question the mandate of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The Office of the High Commissioner has asserted that the report is based on a rigorous review of documentary evidence with its credibility assessed in accordance with standard human rights methodology. The report’s recommendations are pretty straightforward: prompt steps should be taken to release all people arbitrarily imprisoned in Xinjiang, a full legal review of national security and counter-terrorism policies should be undertaken, and an official investigation should be carried into allegations of human rights violations in camps and detention facilities.

Nevertheless, a proposed resolution to hold a debate on the report’s contents in early 2023 is facing severe headwinds. A number of states inside and outside the Human Rights Council, united by their shared history of impunity for rampant human rights abuses – such as Cuba, Egypt, Laos, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Venezuela – have already rallied to China’s defence in informal negotiations on the brief resolution.

What is most worrying is that China appears to be leaning on smaller states that make up the 47-member Human Rights Council by inverting arguments about politicisation of global human rights issues and projecting itself as the victim of a Western conspiracy to undermine its sovereignty.

If China were to have its way, it would be a huge setback for the Human Rights Council, which was conceived in 2006 as a representative body of states designed to overcome the flaws of ‘declining credibility and lack of professionalism’ that marred the work of the body it replaced, the UN Commission on Human Rights.

Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in his ground-breaking In Larger Freedom report, lamented that states sought membership ‘not to strengthen human rights but to protect themselves against criticism or to criticize others’.

Human Rights Council members are expected to uphold the highest standards in the protection and promotion of human rights. But our research at CIVICUS shows that eight of the Council’s 47 members have the worst possible civic space conditions for human rights defenders and their organisations to exist. In these countries – Cameroon, China, Cuba, Eritrea, Libya, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Uzbekistan – human rights are routinely abused and anyone with the temerity to speak truth to power is relentlessly persecuted.

Regimes that serially abuse human rights may be motivated to block findings of investigations being aired on the international stage, but the international community has a collective responsibility to the victims. Civil society groups are urging Human Rights Council members to stand firm on the call for a debate on the China report.

Human Rights Council member states that assert the importance of human rights and democracy in their foreign policy are expected to vote in favour. Nevertheless, the influence of regional and geo-political blocs within the Council mean that the issue will essentially be settled by the decisions of states such as Argentina, Armenia, Benin, Brazil, Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Malawi, Malaysia, Mexico, Paraguay, Senegal, Ukraine and Qatar.

China will undoubtedly pressure these states to try to get them to oppose or abstain in any vote that seeks to advance justice for the Uyghur people.

The stakes are particularly high for China’s mercurial leader, Xi Jinping, who is seeking to anoint himself as president for a third term – after abolishing term limits in 2018 – at the Chinese Communist Party’s Congress, which begins on 16 October.

Recognition of the systematic abuses to which Xi’s administration has subjected the Uyghur people would be considered an international affront to his growing power.

If China were to prevail at the Human Rights Council, it would be another blow to the legitimacy of the UN, which is already reeling from the UN Security Council’s inability to overcome Russia’s permanent member veto to block action on the invasion of Ukraine. So much – for the UN’s reputation, and for the hope that human rights violators, however powerful, will be held to account – is resting on the vote.

Mandeep S. Tiwana, is chief programmes officer and representative to the United Nations at global civil society alliance, CIVICUS.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

India’s vibrant civil society is under threat. Credit: K.S.Harikrishnan.

By Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah and Mandeep S.Tiwana
JOHANNESBURG, Oct 5 2016 (IPS)

Civil society has been described as the oxygen of democracy by no less than UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon. As the world’s largest democracy, India has a proud history of inspiring people’s movements and non-profit organisations looked up to by social change advocates across the globe.

Yet, recent incidents of vilification and harassment of civil society activists and their organisations have escalated to such an extent that the country’s international reputation as a successful multi-cultural democracy, able to accommodate diverse opinions is at stake.

And it need not – it should not – be so. Civil society has played a crucial role in India’s socio-political evolution in the pre and post-independence eras. In the nineteenth century, Jyotirao and Savitri Bai Phule led the movement for women’s empowerment and an end to caste based discrimination while Raja Rammohan Roy challenged child marriage and Sati. This tradition of social justice advocacy has continued in the 21^st century. The 2005 Right to Information Act which draws from the best of international legislation grew out of a civil society led national campaign by anti-corruption activists. The 2006 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, is another example of progressive legislation pioneered by civil society.

On the international stage, India’s vibrant civil society often characterised as a barometer of the country’s democratic health has long been an important source of its soft power. When the UN Declaration of Human Rights was being drafted in 1948, Hansa Mehta drew on her social activism to ensure that the first clause expressly stated that all human beings rather than just ‘men’ are created equal in dignity and rights. In Mahatma Gandhi, India produced perhaps the most prominent civil society activist of the twentieth century. Many of today’s international civil society leaders come from the country.

The current head of Amnesty International is Indian. But that hasn’t protected the organisation from a situation of having to temporarily close its offices in the face of threats and dubious accusations of promoting sedition for highlighting human rights violations. Fueled by such increasingly regular incidents, several well-respected voices, both within and outside India, are condemning the climate of intolerance that now weighs heavily upon the country whose Bill of Rights has provided a human rights template for the constitutions of several other states.

On his recent visit to South Africa, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was presented with an open letter urging an end to the harassment of Lawyer’s Collective, an Indian non-profit organisation that has played a pioneering role in advancing women’s rights, rights of people living with HIV and access to affordable medicines. To fulfil its mandate, Lawyer’s Collective relies on international philanthropy much in the same way that corporate entities rely on foreign direct investment. Nevertheless, Lawyer’s Collective’s permission to receive international funding has been suspended under the infamous Foreign Contributions Regulation Act (FCRA) thereby crippling its work.

The FCRA has been condemned  by no less than three UN experts as failing to comply with international human rights norms and standards.  First conceived during the ‘Emergency’ of 1975-77 when democratic freedoms were suspended by Mrs Indira Gandhi’s Congress Party Government, the FCRA subjects non-profit organisations to a complex maze of bureaucratic requirements and arbitrary discretion to receive resources from international philanthropic institutions or development agencies. Its use of vague terms such as ‘security, strategic, scientific or economic interest of the state’ offers a convenient excuse to choke the funding of organisations uncovering inconvenient truths about high level corruption or rights violations.

Ironically, while several public spirited groups engaged in social justice initiatives are being harassed under the FCRA, senior government officials are courting foreign direct investment in the private sector through the ‘Make in India’ programme. The enhanced – and unfair – scrutiny of civil society for receiving international funds has fueled deceptive characterisations of activists as somehow working at the behest of outside forces; a misnomer in a country where to be employed by a multinational corporation is a popular middle class aspiration supported by the political class and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party government.

As India’s political and economic influence increases globally, developments in the country are being closely followed by the international community. Arguably, India’s quest to play a critical role on the international stage would be better served by recourse to its historical commitment to innate democratic values and support for people’s struggles. Notably, in July this year, India’s diplomatic representatives voted in favour of a UN resolution urging states to create and maintain a safe and enabling environment for civil society but worryingly sought to disassociate the country from text urging civil society funding provisions to be in compliance with international human rights obligations.

A further rebuke to the international system was delivered on September 16 by the country’s security apparatus when Khurram Parvez, coordinator of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Society Coalition was arbitrarily prevented from boarding a flight to attend the UN Human Rights Council session in Geneva. He was later arrested and detained under the notorious Public Safety Act which allows preventive detention without due process. Arguably, such petty behaviour weakens India’s standing in international forums. A mature democracy should not only be able to accommodate dissent but rather point to it as evidence of the robustness of its institutions.

With its inspiring constitution born out of its heroic freedom struggle, India should be championing not undermining civil society freedoms at home and abroad. After all, social and political pressures are best released by enabling constructive activism and engagement. In the end India’s democracy will be strengthened by diversity of opinion and allowing space for critical views.

Excerpt:

By Mandeep S.Tiwana and Teldah Mawarire
JOHANNESBURG, Apr 5 2016 (IPS)

South Africa celebrated human rights month this March with President Zuma recalling the “heroism of our people who stood up for their rights.” However, this same month which commemorates the sacrifices of those who took part in the struggle against apartheid and those who died in the Sharpeville Massacre of 21 March 1960 was not a happy one for today’s civil society activists and organisations engaged in defending human rights. Two shocking incidents raise troubling questions for the future of civil society in the country.

Mandeep S. Tiwana

A day after observing national human rights day, the land and community rights activist Sikhosiphi Rhadebe was brutally assassinated near his home. A day before national human rights day, the offices of the venerable Helen Suzman Foundation were robbed of their equipment, including computers containing information about politically sensitive cases being pursued by the organisation.

Sikhosiphi Rhadebe was the chair of the Amadiba Crisis Community (ACC), which has led a campaign for several years to protect the ecologically fragile Xolobeni area of South Africa’s pristine Wild Coast in the Eastern Cape province from harmful mining activities. The struggle of the ACC is a principled one. It opposes mining on the grounds that it will adversely affect local agricultural activities and potentially lead to forced displacements.

Sikhosiphi Rhadebe was rallying the local population against the activities of Transworld Energy and Minerals (TEM), a South African subsidiary of the Australian mining company, Mineral Commodities (MRC) which wants to mine the shoreline for titanium. His killing with eight gunshots to the head by suspects masquerading as police is not the first instance of violence against those who oppose the mining activities – community activists have reported being subjected to lethal attacks and raids on their houses by local authorities – but it is probably the most brutal.

Teldah Mawarire

Two days prior to the attack on Sikhosiphi Rhadebe, in a robbery orchestrated with military precision, several computers and important documents were taken from the offices of the Helen Suzman Foundation in the upmarket Parktown area of Johannesburg. The Foundation had recently challenged in the High Court regarding the fitness to hold office by the head of the country’s premier investigation agency, Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation also known as the Hawks.

With its mission to promote and defend constitutional democracy, the Helen Suzman Foundation has been involved in a number of high profile cases, including acting as amicus curie or friend of the court in the case involving the non-compliance by South Africa’s government with an International Criminal Court arrest warrant against Sudanese President Omar Al Bashir. In a consequential ruling, a few days before the robbery, the Supreme Court of Appeal held the government’s failure to arrest war crimes suspect, Omar Al Bashir when he visited South Africa to attend an African Union Summit in 2015 as “inconsistent with its constitutional duties.”

Both of these instances raise worrying concerns among civil society in South Africa about the price of taking on the rich and powerful. A joint statement issued by 82 organisations after the assassination of Sikhosiphi Rhadebe points out, “For years, poor people’s movements in different parts of the country have experienced regular harassment, intimidation, detention and violence against their members. It is worst felt when the media are far away and when the victims are poor, black or rural, and when major industries stand to make billions in profit.” This sentiment is borne out of the fact that there have been no convictions for the pre-orchestrated massacre of 34 miners by police in Marikana over three years ago. Those who died in Marikana were seeking a wage increase from the profitable and politically well- connected Lonmin mine.

As the Helen Suzman Foundation case shows, it’s not just activists and organisations deep in South Africa’s hinterland who face intimidation. The Pretoria based Southern Africa Litigation Centre which is working with the Helen Suzman Foundation on the Al Bashir case has been subjected to derogatory rhetoric by several political figures who have questioned its sources of funding to insinuate that it is operating at the behest of foreign governments. A civil society statement following the not-so-ordinary robbery at the Helen Suzman Foundation, executed by well-dressed suspects who knew exactly what they were looking for, laments that the ‘raid’ happened in “a context of increasing hostility by some within the state towards civil society.”

Civil society organisations have urged South African authorities to thoroughly investigate Sikhosiphi Rhadebe’s murder as well as the attack on the Helen Suzman Foundation with a view to bringing the perpetrators to justice. Positively, the murder case of Sikhosiphi Rhadebe has now been taken over by the Hawks but there are few indications that the Helen Suzman case will receive urgency.

While Sikhosiphi Rhadebe‘s murder and the Helen Suzman raid are serious setbacks for civil society, in a positive development South Africa voted in favour of a landmark resolution on the protection of defenders of economic, social and cultural rights at the United Nations Human Rights Council. In this instance, South Africa broke ranks with its BRICS partners, China and Russia, who sought to undermine the protection of rights defenders by proposing several hostile amendments to the text, which were overruled. The resolution supported by South Africa recognises the important and legitimate role of human rights defenders, expresses grave concerns at the risks faced by them and their families and calls upon states to take all necessary measures to ensure their rights and safety. It is now up to the country to reflect on what this means in reality, with the Rhadebe and Suzman incidents being cases in point.

With the country facing several tests in its nascent 21 year old democracy, the role of civil society in dealing with poverty and inequality while addressing gaps in governance and social cohesion is ever more relevant. So far, despite challenges, South Africa’s myriad – and vibrant – civil society groups have been more or less able to publicly express their concerns and get on with their work to advance human rights and social justice. But the events of this March could mark a turning point. Tellingly, there has been no public condemnation of the two shocking incidents by any senior government official.

United Nations Secretary General, Ban ki Moon has called civil society, the ‘oxygen of democracy’, lauding its role as a catalyst for social progress and economic growth. With its raging contemporary debates on corruption, economic downturn, racism and student protests, South Africa needs its civil society more than ever to come up with innovative solutions to complex national problems. Let’s hope the democratically elected leaders of the country are paying attention. Implementing the recent UN resolution could be a good start.

(End)

Excerpt:

By Mandeep S.Tiwana
JOHANNESBURG, Jun 10 2015 (IPS)

Whistle-blowers like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange are hounded – not by autocratic but by democratic governments – for revealing the truth about grave human rights violations. Nobel peace prize winner, writer and political activist Liu Xiaobo  is currently languishing in a Chinese prison while the killing of Egyptian protestor, poet and mother Shaimaa al-Sabbagh, apparently by a masked policeman, in January this year continues to haunt us. 

CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance, has documented serious abuses of civic freedoms in 96 countries in 2014 alone. The annual report of the international advocacy group, Human Rights Watch, laments that the once-heralded Arab Spring has given way almost everywhere to conflict and repression while Amnesty International’s Annual Report 2014/2015 calls it a devastating year for those seeking to stand up for human rights.

Mandeep S. Tiwana

In recent years, there has been a perceptible rise in restrictions on civic space – the fundamental freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly. While the reasons for the eruption of repressive laws and attacks on dissenters vary, negative effects are being felt in both democracies and authoritarian states.

It is increasingly evident that the dangers to civic freedoms come not just from state apparatuses but also from powerful non-state actors including influential business entities and extremist groups subscribing to fundamentalist ideologies. This begs a deeper analysis into the extent and causes of this pervasive problem.

In several countries, laws continue to be drawn up to restrict civic freedoms. They include anti-terror laws that limit freedom of speech, public order laws that limit the right to protest peacefully, laws that stigmatise civil society groups through derogatory names such as ‘foreign agents’, laws that create bureaucratic hurdles to receive crucial funding from international philanthropic institutions as well as laws that prevent progressive civil society organisations from protecting the rights of marginalised minorities such as the LGBTI community.

In this situation, it is indeed possible to identify four key drivers of the pervasive assault on civic space. The first is the global democratic deficit.  Freedom House, which documents the state of democratic rights around the world, has reported declines in civil liberties and political freedoms for the ninth consecutive year in 2015.

In too many countries, peaceful activists exposing corruption and rights violations are being stigmatised as ‘national security threats’, and subjected to politically motivated trials, arbitrary detentions and worse. There appears to be no let up in official censorship and repression of active citizens in authoritarian states like China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Vietnam.“It is increasingly evident that the dangers to civic freedoms come not just from state apparatuses but also from powerful non-state actors including influential business entities and extremist groups subscribing to fundamentalist ideologies”

Freedom of assembly is virtually non-existent in such contexts, and activists are often forced to engage online. But when they do so, they are demonised as being agents of Western security agencies.

Ironically, excessive surveillance and/or hounding of whistle-blowers by countries such as Australia, France, the United Kingdom and United States – whose foreign policies are supposed to promote democratic rights – are contributing to a global climate where close monitoring of anyone suspected of harbouring dissenting views is becoming an accepted norm.

The second driver – and linked to the global democratic deficit – is the worldwide obsession with state security and countering of ‘terrorism’ by all actors except the state. The decline in civic space began after the attack on the World Trade Centre in September 2001 when several established democracies introduced a slew of counter-terror measures weakening human rights safeguards in the name of protecting national security.

The situation worsened after the Arab Spring uprisings of 2011 as authoritarian leaders witnessed the fall of long-standing dictators in Egypt and Tunisia following widespread citizen protests. The possibility of people’s power being able to overturn entrenched political systems has made authoritarian regimes extremely fearful of the free exercise of civic freedoms by citizens.

This has led to a severe push back against civil society by a number of repressive regimes in the Middle East and North Africa. Governments in Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Oman, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have stepped up their efforts to prevent public demonstrations and the activities of human rights groups.

Similar reverberations have also been felt in sub-Saharan African countries with long-standing authoritarian leaders and totalitarian political parties. Thus repression of civic freedoms appears to have intensified in countries such as Angola, Burundi, Ethiopia, Gambia, Rwanda, Sudan, Swaziland and Zimbabwe.

Activists and civil society groups in many countries in Central Asia and Eastern Europe where democracy remains fragile or non-existent such as Azerbaijan, Belarus, Hungary, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Turkey, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are also feeling the heat following governments’ reactions to scuttle demands for political reform.

In South-East Asia too, in countries such as Cambodia and Malaysia which have a history of repressive government and in Thailand where the military seized power through a recent coup, new ‘security’ measures continue to be implemented to restrict civic freedoms.

The third major driver of closing civic space is the rampant collusion and indeed capture of power and resources in most countries by a handful of interconnected political and economic elites.

Oxfam International projects that the richest one percent will own more wealth than 99 percent of the globe’s population by 2016.  Thus civil society groups exposing corruption and/or environmental degradation by politically well-connected businesses are extremely vulnerable to persecution due to the tight overlap and cosy relationships among elites.

With market fundamentalism and the neo-liberal economic discourse firmly entrenched in a number of democracies, labour, land and environmental rights activists are facing heightened challenges.

At least 29 environmental activists were reported murdered in Brazil in 2014. Canada’s centre-right government has been closely monitoring and intimidating indigenous peoples’ rights activists opposing large commercial projects in ecologically fragile areas. India’s prime minister recently urged judges to be wary of “five-star activists“ even as the efforts of Greenpeace India to protect forests from the activities of extractive industries have led it to be subjected to various forms of bureaucratic harassment including arbitrary freezing of its bank accounts.

The fourth and emerging threat to civic space comes from the disturbance caused by religious fundamentalist and evangelist groups seeking to upend the collective progress made by civil society in advancing the human rights discourse.

Failure of the international community to prevent violent conflict and address serious human rights abuses by states such as Israel and Syria is providing a fertile breeding ground for religious extremists whose ideology is deeply inimical to the existence of a vibrant and empowered civil society. 

Besides, religious fundamentalists are able to operate more freely in conflicted and politically fragile environments whose number appears to be rising, thereby exacerbating the situation for civil society organisations and activists seeking to promote equality, peace and tolerance.

Current threats to civic space and civil society activities are a symptom of the highly charged and polarised state of international affairs. The solutions to the grave and interconnected economic, ecological and humanitarian crises currently facing humanity will eventually have to come from civil society through a reassertion of its own value even as political leaders continue to undermine collective efforts.

Beginning a series of conversations on how to respond to common threats at the national, regional and international levels is critical. Establishment of solidarity protocols within civil society could be an effective way to coalesce around both individual cases of harassment as well as systemic threats such as limiting legislation or policies.

Further, the international legal framework that protects civic space needs to be strengthened. The International Bill of Rights comprising the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) leaves scope for subjective interpretation of some aspects of civic freedoms.

It is perhaps time to examine the possibility of a comprehensive legally binding convention on civic space that better articulates the extent and scope of civic space, so essential to an empowered civil society.  However, laws are only as good as the commitment of those charged with overseeing their implementation.

Importantly and urgently, to reverse the global onslaught on civic space and human rights, we need visionary political leadership willing to take risks and lead by example.

Over the last few years, analysts have noted with horror the steady dismantling of hard won gains on civic freedoms. Many thought things could get no worse. … but they did.

It is time to start thinking seriously about stemming the tide before we reach the point of no return. Ending the persecution of Assange, Snowden and Liu Xiaobo could be a good start for preventing precious lives such as Shaimaa’s from being lost.

Edited by Phil Harris   

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, IPS – Inter Press Service. 

Excerpt:

By Mandeep S.Tiwana
JOHANNESBURG, Mar 23 2015 (IPS)

For those of us interested in a vibrant civil society, it seems to be best of times and the worst of times.

In recent months, there has been great progress in recognising the importance of civil society in shaping the so-called ‘post-2015’ agenda and an explicit recognition of the important role that civil society will play in delivering sustainable development. However, in many countries around the world, the actual conditions in which civil society operates are getting worse not better.

As we come closer to a new global agreement on sustainable development goals (SDGs), we need to push for an agreement – backed by robust indicators – that will make a tangible difference in protecting civic freedoms.

Mandeep S. Tiwana

Indeed, a perceptible rise in bureaucratic harassment and raids on NGO offices, violent dispersal of citizen demonstrations, attacks on and illicit surveillance of activists, combined with the application of draconian laws to silence dissent and restrict funding, has many civil society observers worried about shrinking space for the sector.

Over the course of last year, CIVICUS, the global alliance for citizen participation, monitored severe threats to civic freedoms in roughly half of the globe’s 193 countries. Amnesty International’s Annual Report for 2014/2015 calls it “a devastating year” for those seeking to stand up for human rights. Front Line Defenders, which works to protect human rights defenders at risk, reports the killing or death in detention of over 130 human rights defenders in the first ten months of 2014 alone.

All of this is happening while the United Nations is making unprecedented efforts to ensure greater civil society participation in the post-2015 global development framework.

While the next generation of sustainable development goals, their associated targets and indicators will be decided by world leaders at their Sep. 25-27 summit in New York this year, civil society’s role in grounding the framework in people’s aspirations and holding duty bearers to account is crucial.“Assurances for a civil society enabling environment and respect for the freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly in the post-2015 framework are integral to greater public involvement and accountability in development”

In light of recent trends which point to shrinkage of civil society space, in both democracies and non-democracies, there is naturally a high level of anxiety whether guarantees on civic freedoms and civil society participation will be included in the final framework. Indeed, a major criticism of the current Millennium Development Goal (MDG) framework is that it has failed to recognise and thereby institutionalise the role of active citizens and civil society organisations in development.

Assurances for a civil society enabling environment and respect for the freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly in the post-2015 framework are integral to greater public involvement and accountability in development.

So far, some progress has been made but the gains remain shaky because many governments which will be involved in adopting the final framework in September are themselves complicit in serious violations of civic freedoms. These include some influential states such as China, Cuba, Egypt, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia and Turkey whose developmental models are predicated on top-down governance with scant role for independent civil society.

Positively, the U.N. Secretary General’s Synthesis Report on the Post-2015 Agenda, released in December last year, calls for the creation of an “enabling environment under the rule of law for the free, active and meaningful engagement of civil society and advocates reflecting the voices of women, minorities, LGBT groups, indigenous peoples, youth, adolescents and older persons.”

Notably, participatory democracy – without which civic freedoms cannot meaningfully exist – has been described as both an enabler and outcome of development.

From the perspective of civic freedoms and civil society participation, the U.N. Secretary General’s report has done well to elaborate on the proposal submitted to the U.N. General Assembly by the Open Working on Sustainable Development Goals (OWG) in July 2014.

Comprising 30 representatives nominated by U.N. member states from all the regions of the world, the OWG recommended 17 goals and 169 corresponding targets which are the basis of intergovernmental negotiations on the SDGs this year.

Two goals are particularly relevant from the standpoint of civil society’s ability to freely operate and monitor progress on the framework.  These are proposed Goal 16 (“promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels”) and proposed Goal 17 (“strengthen the means of implementation and revitalise the global partnership for development”). 

The proposed goals are further sub-divided into targets. For instance, targets under Goal 16 include “responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision making at all levels” and “public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements.” A key target under Goal 17 is to “encourage and promote effective public, public-private, and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships.”

Progress on the proposed targets will be measured by indicators currently being developed by various U.N. bodies, including the U.N. Statistics Division. Ultimately, it will be the indicators that will anchor the post-2105 agenda because gains will be gauged through their prism. It is therefore crucial that the United Nations is able to identify suitable tools to measure civic space and civil society participation.

Although, the U.N. Development Programme (UNDP) has produced a report titled ‘Accountability through Civic Participation in the Post-2015 Development Agenda’, much more needs to be done to put in place relevant indicators that are linked to the targets identified by the OWG.

For instance, in relation to proposed Target 16.10 with its focus on “fundamental freedoms”, it would be valuable to evaluate whether both legislation and practice protect civic space, in particular the freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly.  Similarly, under proposed Target 17.17 with its focus on encouraging and promoting civil society partnerships, it will be vital to measure the existence of enabling conditions such as mandated requirements for civil society involvement in official policy making processes at the national level.

Currently, there are a number of initiatives that measure civic space and civil society participation. Some of these, such as the World Press Freedom Index, the Freedom in the World survey and the Enabling Environment Index, are led by civil society organisations, while others such as the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation are being developed by multi-stakeholder initiatives.

With post-2015 negotiations entering the final phase, it is vital that political negotiators and technical experts are convinced that adoption of the above and associated methodologies will lead to better service delivery, citizen monitoring and accountability.

With the attention on the post-2015 agenda now focused on measurement, civil society advocates have their work cut out to also engage and influence the statisticians. Ambitious goals and targets will count for nothing if not backed by relevant indicators. (END/IPS COLUMNIST SERVICE)

Edited by Phil Harris   

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, IPS – Inter Press Service. 

Excerpt:

By Mandeep S.Tiwana
JOHANNESBURG, Nov 25 2014 (IPS)

Nabeel Rajab, president of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights, an advocacy NGO, is facing criminal charges for sending a tweet that said: “many Bahrain men who joined terrorism and ISIS have come from the security institutions and those institutions were the first ideological incubator”.

Yara Sallam, a young Egyptian woman activist, is in prison for protesting against a public assembly law declared by United Nations experts to be in breach of international law.

In Nigeria, it is illegal to support the formation of `gay clubs and institutions’.

Mandeep S. Tiwana

In Bangladesh, civil society groups are subjected to rigorous scrutiny of their project objectives with a view to discourage documentation of serious human rights abuses.

In Honduras, activists exposing the nexus between big business owners and local officials to circumvent rules operate under serious threat to their lives.

In South Sudan, a draft law is in the making that requires civil society groups to align their work with the government-dictated national development plan.

With barely a year to go before finalisation of the next generation of global development goals, civil society groups are facing increasing challenges as they seek to assume their rightful role as partners in development.

Back in 2010, when the United Nations organised a major summit to take stock of progress on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), a number of civil society groups lamented that“too little partnership and too little space” was marring the achievement of MDG targets.“With barely a year to go before finalisation of the next generation of global development goals, civil society groups are facing increasing challenges as they seek to assume their rightful role as partners in development”

They pointed out that, in a large number of countries, legal and practical limitations were preventing civil society groups from being set up, engaging in legitimate undertakings and accessing resources, impeding both the service delivery and watchdog functions of the sector, thereby negatively affecting development activities.

Since then, there has been greater recognition at multilateral levels about the challenges faced by civil society. In 2011, at a high-level forum on aid and development effectiveness, 159 national governments and the European Union resolved to create an “enabling environment” for civil society organisations to maximise their contributions to development.

In 2013, the U.N. Secretary General’s expert High Level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda recommended that a separate goal on good governance and effective institutions should be created. The experts suggested that this goal should include targets to measure freedoms of speech, association, peaceful protest and access to independent media and information, which are integral to a flourishing civil society.

The Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has also emphasised the importance of ‘partnership with civil society’ in the post-2015 agenda. Even as restrictions on civil society activities have multiplied around the world, the U.N. Human Rights Council has passed resolutions calling for the protection of civic space.

Senior U.N. officials and experts, including the new High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, have spoken out against state-sanctioned reprisals against activists highlighting human rights abuses at home and abroad.

Yet, despite the progress, civic space appears to be shrinking. The State of Civil Society Report 2014 issued by CIVICUS points out that following the upheavals of the Arab Spring, many governments have felt threatened and targeted activists advocating for civil and political freedoms.

In Ethiopia, bloggers and journalists speaking out against restrictions on speech and assembly have been targeted under counter-terrorism legislation for “inciting” disaffection.

Additionally, the near total dominance of free market economic policies has created a tight overlap between the economic and political elite, putting at risk environmental and land rights activists challenging the rise of politically well-connected mining, construction and agricultural firms.

Global Witness has pointed out that there has been a surge in the killing of environmental activists over the last decade.

Notably, abundant political conflicts and cultural clashes are spurring religious fundamentalism and intolerant attitudes towards women’s equality and the rights of sexual minorities, putting progressive civil society groups at serious risk from both physical attacks as well as politically motivated prosecutions.

In Uganda, concerns have been expressed about the promotion of homophobia by right-wing religious groups.

In Pakistan, indiscriminate attacks on women’s rights activists are seriously impairing their work.

Countering these regressive developments will require greater efforts from the international community to entrench notions of civic space in both developmental as well as human rights forums.

A critical mass of leading civil society organisations has written to U.N. Secretary General Ban ki-Moon urging him to ensure that the post-2015 agenda focuses on the full spectrum of human rights, with clear targets on civil and political rights that sit alongside economic, social and cultural rights.

It is being argued that explicit inclusion of the freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly which underpin a vibrant and able civil society should be goals in themselves in the new global development agenda.

It is equally vital to make parallel progress on the human rights front. Many governments that restrict civic freedoms are taking cover under the overbroad provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

They argue that the provisions of the ICCPR on freedom of association and assembly, which are short on detail, are open to multiple interpretations on issues such as the right to operate an organisation without formal registration or to spontaneously organise a public demonstration.

The global discourse on civil society rights would be greatly strengthened if the U.N. Human Rights Committee, the expert body of jurists responsible for interpreting the ICCPR, could comprehensively articulate the scope of these freedoms.

This would complement progress made at the U.N. Human Rights Council and support implementation of comprehensive best practice guidelines issued by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedoms of peaceful assembly and association.

For now, the odds seem to be heavily stacked against civil society groups fighting for economic, social and political justice. Many powerful governments do not subscribe to democratic values and are fundamentally opposed to the notion of an independent sector. And many democracies have themselves encroached on civic space in the face of perceived security and strategic interests.

Civil society around the world must remain vigilant and act collectively to ensure that the fundamental rights of freedom of expression, association and assembly are protected. We have come too far to let those with vested interests encroach on the space for citizens and civil society to thrive. (END/IPS COLUMNIST SERVICE)

(Edited by Phil Harris)

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, IPS – Inter Press Service. 

Excerpt:

By Mandeep S.Tiwana
JOHANNESBURG, Sep 2 2014 (IPS)

The killings of hundreds of civilians, including scores of children, in Gaza – whose only fault was to have been born on the wrong side of the wall – was a major point of contention at the United Nations Human Rights Council at the end of July.

The high death toll caused by indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas by the Israeli military has resulted in what may very likely be war crimes. The United Nations has said that 70 percent of those killed in Gaza were civilians.

Mandeep Tiwana

Yet Western democracies, normally proactive on human rights issues at the Council, chose to withhold their vote when a resolution urging immediate cessation of Israeli military assaults throughout the Occupied Territories, including East Jerusalem, and an end to attacks against all civilians, including Israeli civilians, was brought forward.

Notably, the resolution sought to create an independent international commission of inquiry to investigate all violations of international human rights and humanitarian law in the context of military operations conducted since June 13, 2014.

When asked to vote on the above, Austria, France, Ireland, Italy, Germany and the United Kingdom chose to abstain. The United States, whose foreign policy mission is to “shape and sustain a peaceful, prosperous, just and democratic world and foster conditions for stability and progress for the benefit of the American people and people everywhere,” was ironically the only country in the 47 member U.N. Human Rights Council to have voted against the resolution.“Institutions of global governance should be able to offer a source of protection and support for people who are being repressed, marginalised or excluded at the national level. Yet, too often, they are captured by state interests which override genuine human rights concerns.”

Essentially, each country standing for election to the Human Rights Council is required to “uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights.” By any yardstick, looking at the wanton death and destruction that has rained down on the people of Gaza, destroying the homes and livelihoods of tens of thousands as well as vital public infrastructure, is a blatant abdication of responsibility.

In 2006, when the Human Rights Council was created, then U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan poignantly remarked that the true test of its ability would be the use that member states make of it. Eight years down the line, sadly the Council remains a house divided on the great human rights matters of the day.

Earlier this year in March, when the Human Rights Council passed a resolution aimed at addressing impunity for the widespread violations of international law committed during and after the Sri Lankan civil war, many of the countries strongly in favour of accountability for crimes committed in the Gaza conflict – such as Algeria, China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Viet Nam – voted against the Sri Lanka resolution. Conversely, Western democracies that abstained on the Gaza vote robustly supported action to tackle impunity in Sri Lanka.

This double standard represents perhaps the greatest challenge to the world’s premier human rights body.

Notably, the Human Rights Council was established in response to well-founded criticism of rampant politicisation of human rights issues by its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights.  At the Human Rights Council too, geopolitical interests of the more powerful states are driving selective blocking and support for human rights causes by elected member states, weakening respect for international standards. 

Notably, the formation of blocs presents a grave threat to the Council’s work. Its members have unfortunately slotted themselves into various informal groups such as the Western European and Others Group (WEOG),  African Group, Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) countries, and even a motley ‘Like-Minded Group’ that shares little in political culture and world view except that it largely opposes whatever the Western group comes up with.

These unfortunate political dynamics have weakened the ability of the Council to be a beacon for the advancement of human rights discourse. Tellingly, the issue of discrimination against and violations of the personal freedoms of sexual minorities including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual (LGBT) individuals remains another hotly contested area.

A regressively worded June 2014 resolution on the ‘protection of the family’ – which excludes LGBT individuals from the ambit of the family – witnessed en-masse voting in favour by the African, OIC and ‘Like-Minded Group’.

Worryingly, far too many countries are caught up in the herd mentality of en-masse voting coupled with advancement of strategic interests at the Human Rights Council. Too often, principle is being abandoned at the altar of politics. Every time this happens, the legitimacy of the global governance institution suffers, further exacerbating conflict.

A report by the global civil society alliance, CIVICUS, points out that in an ever more complex governance environment, where large problems are acknowledged to cross national borders, international level decision-making is starting to matter more.

Institutions of global governance should be able to offer a source of protection and support for people who are being repressed, marginalised or excluded at the national level. Yet, too often, they are captured by state interests which override genuine human rights concerns.

Civil society and the media have their work cut out to expose the hypocrisy and inconsistency that mars action on gross human rights violations in international forums like the Human Rights Council. States need to be held accountable and practice what they preach – on principle, and not only when it suits them. (END/IPS COLUMNIST SERVICE)

(Edited by Phil Harris)

Excerpt:

By Mandeep S.Tiwana
JOHANNESBURG, May 17 2013 (IPS)

In December 2011, 159 governments and major international organisations recognised the central role of civil society in development and promised to create an “enabling” operating environment for the non-profit sector.

Mandeep Tiwana, policy and advocacy manager of CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation. Credit: Mandeep Tiwana

Despite the tall talk at the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid and Development Effectiveness in Busan, South Korea, today NGOs, trade unions, faith based groups, social movements and community based organisations working to expose rights violations and corruption remain in a state of siege in many parts of the world.

Reports by U.N. officials and respected civil society organisations show that false prosecutions and murderous attacks on activists are rife and threatening to derail international development objectives even as we debate a new framework to replace the Millennium Development Goals, which expire in 2015.

In fact, moves are being championed by some governments to limit civil society participation at high-level meetings of the U.N. General Assembly through a process whereby states can issue politically motivated objections to the inclusion of particular NGOs in key discussions.

Unfortunately, legal restrictions on free speech, formation of civic organisations and the right to protest peacefully appear to be on the rise despite the rhetoric of engaging civil society in global decision making forums.

In many countries civil society groups are being prevented from accessing funding from international sources, as highlighted by the U.N.’s special expert on freedom of assembly and association in his latest report.

In Russia, non-profit advocacy groups receiving international funding are being subjected to intrusive inspections to ensure compliance with a controversial law that requires NGOs to register under the highly offensive nomenclature of “foreign agents”, or face sanctions.

A draft law currently pending in Bangladesh seeks to implement a cumbersome approval process for civil society organisations receiving foreign funding, in an attempt to discourage criticism of the government.

Egypt is mulling over a new law that would allow intelligence and security agencies to exert control over independent civil society groups.

Meanwhile, Ethiopia’s most prolific blogger is serving an 18-year sentence for writing about the implications of the Arab Spring for his country. A respected Laotian activist is missing after he criticised state-sponsored displacement of local communities.

In Saudi Arabia, founders of the Saudi Association for Civil and Political Rights have been handed 10 and 11-year sentences for “breaking allegiance to the King.” China continues to incarcerate dissident writers calling for democratic reform, including Nobel Peace Laureate Liu Xiobo.

The situation is alarming in fragile and conflict-affected states. As the civil war rages on in Syria, a number of peaceful civil society activists and journalists are being imprisoned and persecuted in violation of international human rights law.

The actions of Colombian right-wing paramilitary groups have become so murderous that the country is now the deadliest place in the world for trade unionists.

Women’s rights activists challenging patriarchy and religious fundamentalism in Pakistan are gunned down with frightening regularity, while activists from Sri Lanka and Bahrain voicing concerns at the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva often face reprisals upon return to their home countries.

In Cameroon and Uganda activists seeking to advance gay rights are not only socially ostracised but also subjected to death threats on a regular basis to prevent them from carrying out their work.

Even in so-called mature democracies, expressing dissent remains an activity fraught with negative consequences. A section of the environmental group Forest Ethics Canada decided to give up its charitable status, including tax advantages, in order to protect itself from intrusive inspections after being blamed by the conservative government of “obstructing” the country’s economic development.

Julian Assange, founder of the activist website WikiLeaks, continues to be hounded for his exposé of U.S. diplomatic cables and, arguably, doing what most investigative journalists do.

In the United Kingdom, the practice of police spies penetrating the environmental movement has prompted a sharp rebuke from the U.N., whose expert on freedom of assembly and association, Maina Kiai, expressed “deep concern” in January about police officers infiltrating non-violent groups who were not engaged in any criminal activities.

As evidence from CIVICUS’ State of Civil Society Report 2013 shows, promises made in Busan about creating an “enabling” environment for CSOs were ignored as soon as the proverbial ink had dried.

With discussions on the post 2015 development agenda well underway, influential civil society groups are urging the U.N.’s High Level Panel to explicitly recognise the centrality of an enabling environment for civil society in any new formulation of internationally agreed development goals.

While politicians are currently preoccupied with kick-starting or maintaining economic growth, there is a real danger that civil society’s right and ability to engage decision makers in various forums will be further limited.

If global development goals are to succeed, civil society needs to be able to operate free from fear of reprisals for advancing legitimate if uncomfortable concerns. After all, civil society groups contribute substantially to development strategies and help find innovative solutions to complex developmental challenges.

More importantly, they help ensure the representation of a wide range of voices, in particular those of the vulnerable and marginalised in development debates. Perhaps this is why they are being persecuted.

(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Mandeep S.Tiwana and Netsanet Belay
JOHANNESBURG, Sep 15 2011 (IPS)

In the hope for a fairer deal on aid for the continent, African leaders are planning to present a unified position at the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (HLF4) in Busan, South Korea. Currently, discussions are underway between the African Union, New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), and private sector and civil society representatives on how to improve the impact of aid for the most vulnerable and marginalised. The outcome of these discussions will then be taken to Busan in November this year as the ‘African Consensus and Position on Development Effectiveness’.

As 2000 high-level delegates and experts converge on Busan, to review global progress on the impact and effectiveness of aid, it is imperative that the needs of Africa take centre stage. Present aid policies are failing Africa, as evidenced by the fact that 33 of the world’s 48 Least Developed Countries (LDCs) are on the continent. UN estimates of progress on the Millennium Development Goals show that Africa is lagging behind the rest of the world in reducing poverty. According to 2005 estimates, which are still quoted by experts, half the people in Sub-Saharan African live on less than UDS 1.25 a day.

Civil society is hoping for enhanced commitments in Busan from donor and recipient countries to set a new agenda for development that maximises the benefits of aid for those most in need. It is thus imperative from an African perspective that political leaders and senior government officials coming to HLF 4 reiterate their commitment to implementing principles agreed to in previous high level forums on aid effectiveness at Accra (2008) and Paris (2005).

At Busan, Africa needs developed donor countries to live up to their aid commitments and ensure the predictability of aid flows to allow recipient countries to plan for the future on the basis of aid that has been promised for development. Following the global financial crisis of 2008, a number of developed countries reneged on official development aid commitments by drastically slashing the amount of aid that had been promised, putting to waste the efforts of African countries who had spent considerable time and resources in formulating extensive plans for the utilisation of the projected aid.

Additionally, the failure of developed countries to allocate a minimal percentage of 0.7 percent of their Gross National Income to developing countries to meet their development goals through aid from abroad needs to be in the spotlight. This figure was agreed through a UN General Assembly resolution way back in 1970. Sadly, only a handful of developed countries have met this target in official development assistance while most fall woefully short of it.

Moreover, if official aid is to work, it must be de-linked from political or economic considerations of the donor government in keeping with the agreed principle of non-conditionality. This is a highly-contested issue as aid flows remain dependent on the strategic and geopolitical priorities of donor governments, including security concerns. It is an open secret that some LDCs in Africa have received more aid than others not on the basis of the actual needs of their populations but because of to their governments’ willingness to cooperate militarily in the global ‘war on terror’. There is a strong demand from civil society that conditionality be focused only on ‘development results’, including a commitment to the protection of human rights, social justice, and transparency.

From Africa’s perspective, while it is important to spur economic development on the continent, there is also an equally pressing need to re-orient global economic governance towards meeting the needs of the impoverished and the marginalised. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), from which many African states have borrowed huge amounts of money, continue to be governed by (and serve the economic agenda of) a handful of traditionally rich countries. Discussions at Busan cannot be divorced from reform and democratisation of international financial institutions whose work has a powerful resonance on the continent.

Another key principle of aid that has emerged from previous high level forums is that of ‘national ownership’. Many African states have sought to interpret this as ‘government ownership’, as evident in the proliferation of policy pronouncements and legislation to allow governments to maintain hegemony over aid money to the detriment of other stakeholders, such as parliamentarians who sit in the opposition, civil society, and local communities.

Since the last High Level Forum in Accra in 2008, a number of legal and policy restrictions across the African continent have been put in place to prevent civil society groups from demanding accountability from governments through provisions that restrict the advocacy work of NGOs and force them to bring their activities in line with national development plans decided by governments. The serious crisis of shrinking civil society space on the continent is exacerbated by the fact that many vocal civil society advocates exposing corruption and human rights violations are being intimidated through motivated prosecutions, threats, attacks on their reputations, and extreme physical violence.

There is also a worrying paucity of information from African countries regarding the impact that aid is having on the lives of the impoverished. This is linked to the lack of democratic institutions that can independently verify the actions of governments.

In Busan, the world cannot afford to fail Africa, and nor can African leaders. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Mandeep Tiwana works as the Policy Manager and Netsanet Belay works as the Director of Policy and Research at CIVICUS, a global alliance of civil society headquartered in Johannesburg.

Excerpt:

By Mandeep S.Tiwana
JOHANNESBURG, Apr 7 2011 (IPS)

Interestingly, the website of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization proudly proclaims “NATO Allies decided on March 27 to take on the whole military operation in Libya under UN Security Council Resolution 1973.” This sole claim of ownership over a UN-sponsored mandate by a military alliance is indeed worrying and begs the question whether international precedents are being established here to conflate a multi-lateral UN force with a NATO force.

When Gaddafi’s military unleashed disproportionate force against what appeared to be hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned pro-democracy supporters, a number of civil society and independent observers urged the international community to step in to prevent further crimes against humanity. What many hoped would be an across-the-board humanitarian intervention by a multi-lateral UN force to protect civilian lives has somehow ended up becoming a military operation run by a “coalition of the willing”, some of whose constituents are themselves blamed for causing large numbers of civilian deaths in military operations elsewhere.

The sad state of current international geo-politics can be seen in a number of ironies: the French air force targeting Libyan jet fighters produced and sold by France; the US government’s selective urgency in taking action to protect civilian lives in Libya and not in Cote d’Ivoire; and the British prime minister’s trip to Kuwait with arms manufacturers just after a successful revolution by largely peaceful pro-democracy protestors in Egypt.

Most notably, the five permanent and veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council whose responsibility under the UN Charter is to maintain international peace and security accounted for three quarters of global arms sales, which fuelled deadly armed conflicts between 2002-2009. Further proof of this moral ambivalence emerges from the fact that three of these major arms suppliers – the US, UK and France- also position themselves as staunch champions of democracy and freedom across the world.

The nature and extent of the support for these values in regional and national contexts is of course tempered by the trade and geopolitical interests of this “pro-democracy” trio within the Security Council. But, despite the conditional championing of these values -and the arms sales- the US, UK, and France do fund and provide substantial technical assistance to myriad civil society initiatives advancing human and democratic rights around the world. This provides a veneer of legitimacy to their moral posturing on human rights as well as a smokescreen for some less charitable actions to further strategic interests.

Given this state of affairs, the need for the emergence of alternate and principled centres of power that own the global human rights agenda, particularly amongst nations of the global south – where most struggles are being waged- is acute.

In the second half of the twentieth century when struggles against colonial domination and the hegemony of the principal power blocks were being waged, initiatives such as the Bandung Conference and the formation of the Non-aligned Movement (NAM) provided a ray of hope that some governments even though they were not strong military powers at the time were willing to challenge the domination of a few over many. In fact, key constituents of NAM played a vital role in catalysing diplomatic action at global multi-lateral forums to support Afro-Asian struggles against racial oppression.

Unfortunately, the passage of time has taken its toll on NAM, which has become large and unwieldy. Some of its members have also earned reputations as “human rights spoilers” at the UN in addition to being complicit in large-scale rights violations. The failings of NAM have created a large vacuum for principled and vocal leadership to advance democratic rights in the global south as well as to counterbalance the moral hegemony and selective promotion of human rights abroad by major western powers.

At present, no grouping of major powers is better placed to fill this role than the India, Brazil, and South Africa (IBSA) trilateral. Established in 2003, IBSA prides itself in being a meeting of minds of three multi-ethnic and multi-cultural democracies determined to contribute to the construction of a new international architecture. However, while IBSA has enormous potential to do good in a constantly changing and increasingly multipolar world and to entrench and deepen the protection of human and democratic rights globally, its constituents have some ground to cover to enhance their legitimacy to advance these values. Moreover, IBSA’s potential to do good hinges on a few factors:

First, the political leadership of these three countries needs to be confident in the knowledge that despite the imperfect enjoyment of human rights by their own citizens, substantial progress has been made in their domestic environments. Nevertheless, the need to practice at home what one preaches abroad cannot be overemphasised.

Second, there must be a willingness to discard diplomatic niceties and call a spade a spade at bilateral and multilateral forums when gross abuses of human rights are committed. This will require a spring cleaning of current diplomatic doctrines and relationships. Lest they be accused of the same hypocrisy in international affairs that the established powers have become accustomed to practising, South Africa will need to reassess its relationship with Mugabe’s dictatorship in Zimbabwe, Brazil will need to reconsider its future support of Iran at the UN, and India will need to speak out against the military junta committing crimes against humanity on its doorstep in Myanmar.

Third, there needs to be an acknowledgement that IBSA has much to offer to in terms of south-south cooperation by helping to put in place democratic institutions and stable structures across the developing world. For this, the governments of India, Brazil and South Africa need to devote far more resources and energy to building up their international development agencies. The three countries already have strong and vibrant civil societies which can lead the way in strengthening people-to-people contacts across the developing world and sharing experiences on building and sustaining a democratic culture.

Finally, there needs to be recognition that the days of absolute dictators and authoritarian heads of government are coming to an end, and it is in a country’s long-term interest to be on the right side of history. The question is whether Messrs Singh, Rousseff and Zuma are willing to play a part in scripting it. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Mandeep S.Tiwana is Policy Manager, CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation

Excerpt: