Sarah Mendelson, senior adviser and director of the Human Rights Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) spoke about how human rights scholars and practitioners can push back on closing space around civil society for the Stanford Program on Human Rights’ Winter Speaker Series U.S Human Rights NGOs and International Human Rights on January 21, 2015.

Mendelson, having previously worked as an activist, academic, and government official, addressed the Stanford audience from multiple perspectives about the relationship between U.S governmental agencies and domestic and international NGOs. She emphasized the lack of alignment in the research emerging from academics and policymakers, stressing the need to close the gap between universities and government. Mendelson proposes that public opinion survey instruments be deployed to test the efficacy of NGO work in the field, and that universities, governments and NGOs collaborate in developing these instruments.

There was a great deal of overlap in the issues that Mendelson addressed and those addressed by Douglas Rutzen on January 7, 2015. Both described the alarming movement of governments to close space around civil society, stating that the trend has now extended far beyond Russia to become a global phenomenon. Mendelson probed the audience with challenging reflections on the potential negative consequences of the Silicon Valley open agenda approach towards data transparency, demonstrating how governments view the increased connectivity as a threat to their sovereignty. Therefore, there is a link between the need for transparent, accountable governments on one hand, and closing of civic space on the other, a paradox that is activating dangerous tensions between governments and their citizenry.

Helen Stacy, director of the Program on Human Rights, followed Mendelson’s talk with questions on the legitimacy of NGOs; the extent to which NGOs are held accountable for their work; and the moral soundness of public opinion. Mendelson responded and concluded with the ultimate need for more powerful data to provide legitimacy for NGOs and for policy to be driven by evidence. Questions from the audience included how ethics tie into international development work, the proper toolset for doing due diligence on an NGO as a potential place of work, and the connection between innovation and humanitarianism.

Dana Phelps, Program Associate, Program on Human Rights

Writing for Democratization, Kyong Jun Choi at the University of Washington reviewed New Challenges for Maturing Democracies in Korea and Taiwan (Stanford University Press, 2014), a co-edited book by Stanford professors Larry Diamond and Gi-Wook Shin.

“Among the most notable strengths of this volume is its analysis of new phenomena that have rarely been addressed in existing literature,” Choi writes.

The book seeks to illustrate different characteristics of the evolution of democracy in Taiwan and South Korea. The two countries share similar economic and political directions since industrialization took place in the 1960s and transition toward democracy began in the 1980s.

Choi says that the book “certainly stands as a stepping stone for research on new democracies struggling to consolidate democracy.”

“New Challenges” is one outcome of a multiyear research project at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, and a conference co-hosted with the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law in 2011.

The review is featured in Democratization’s vol. 21, issue 7. Information about accessing the review can found by clicking here.

Douglas Rutzen, president and CEO of the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL), and adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., gave a talk on defending civil society for the Stanford Program on Human Rights’ Winter Speaker Series, “U.S. Human Rights NGOs and International Human Rights,” on January 7, 2015.

Rutzen sounded the alarm of today’s disturbing trend of governments around the world using the rule of law to restrict civic spaces of congregation and protestation. Highlighting that national governments are constitutionally committed to a rule of law, Rutzen claimed this is not being applied in the interests of the citizen but rather to restrict citizens’ criticism of government. Rutzen emphasized that this misuse of the rule of law to restrict civil society is a tool of manipulation utilized not just by nations with a history of civic control, such as Cuba and Russia, but also by liberal democracies, including the United States.

Rutzen noted that the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) established in 2000 were dramatically altered by the attacks of September 11, 2001. NGOs were targeted as potential terrorist organizations, while at the same time recognized for their potential to fight terrorism. This contradiction shows the tension in the role of NGOs in civil society. The challenge now lies in a long-term transformation of the relationship between NGOs representing civil society and national governments.

The talk continued with a discussion with Helen Stacy, director of the Program on Human Rights, and Rutzen. Stacy posed provocative questions that challenged Rutzen to defend his stance with questions on U.S. cultural imperialism; “good” and “bad” civil society groups; and the need to understand domestic civil society engagement with human rights issues as part of international human rights activism. 

-Dana Phelps, Program Associate, Program on Human Rights

In a piece for The American Interest, Francis Fukuyama discusses President Obama’s recent executive action on immigration. Fukuyama argues that Obama’s power grab will not produce better democratic government and will lead to more gridlock and partisanship.