In the 25th anniversary edition of The Journal of Democracy, CDDRL Director Larry Diamond reflects on the current democratic recession and why this trend is so troubling.

Diamond, who serves as the founding co-editor of The Journal of Democracy, argues that the world is in a mild but protracted democratic recession, which raises alarm due to the rate of democratic failures and where they are occurring. In surveying global empirical trends, Diamond cites 25 breakdowns of democracy since 2000 that were not the cause of military coups but rather the slow erosion of democratic rights and procedures.

Another worrisome trend for Diamond is the declining freedom in a number of countries and regions since 2005. This is most notable in Africa where corruption and the abuse of power are leading to the decline of the rule of law and political rights across the region. It is also affecting countries of global strategic importance with large populations and economic influence– from Taiwan to Mexico – and leading to the resurgence of authoritarianism in Russia and China. Diamond also looks to the U.S. where the dysfunction and breakdown of American democracy sets a bad precedent for the rest of the world. 

Diamond concludes on an optimistic note, stressing that strong public support for democracy may reverse many of these troubling trends and help sustain longer-term democratic progress.

From left to right: Thomas Carothers, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Alina Mungiu-Pippidi, Hertie School of Governance (Berlin); Marc Plattner, National Endowment for Democracy; Larry Diamond, Stanford University; Steven Levitsky, Harvard University; and Lucan Way, University of Toronto.

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

Nick Deychakiwsky, program officer at the C.S. Mott Foundation, and Maurice Middleberg, executive director of Free the Slaves, engaged in a realistic, yet encouraging conversation on the fabric of NGOs for CDDRL's Program on Human Rights’ Winter Speaker Series “U.S. Human Rights NGOs and International Human Rights” on January 14, 2015.

Deychakiwsky gave the audience the macro perspective to NGOs working in human rights, while Middleberg, working on a specific mission to end modern day slavery, provided the micro perspective. Both Deychakiwsky and Middleberg pronounced the complications and challenges of working for and running an NGO today, narrating a cautionary yet motivating story of NGO management. Deychakiwsky pointed out that all too often, accountability to the society whose projects are designed to help gets lost in the bigger picture of NGO management. He emphasized that to have a positive impact, an NGO must remain mindful of and true to its core values and organizational mission. Middleberg agreed with Deychakiwsky’s view that an organization must always stay true to its mission, while at the same time emphasized that an NGO must nurture its own financial health and organizational culture in order to have the capacity for safekeeping its mission.  

Helen Stacy, director of the Program on Human Rights, was struck by the overlap in Deychakiwsky and Middleberg’s stances on NGO management. Stacy questioned Deychakiwsky about indicators for testing local accountability, and Deychakiwsky pointed out that when a community is willing to offer resources such as time or money, that it is a very strong indication that the project will succeed. Stacy probed Middleberg on his theory of change, asking whether there is an overemphasis of “head” (organizational management) over “heart” (organizational mission). Middleberg asserted that the head and heart of an organization are not in contradiction, but that the head has to be “squared off” in order for the organization to not lose its heart. When asked about NGO competition, both Middleberg and Deychakiwsky believe that there need to be fewer emerging NGOs, and more partnerships and mergers between those that currently exist. Questions from the audience included the resources required for theory of change, the need and ability to stay true to one’s mission, and the systems in place to test and measure change.  

Dana Phelps, Program Associate, Program on Human Rights

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