View previous stories
	Open Government Partnership undermined by threats to civil society by CIVICUS Monitor, agencies   December 2016   People’s rights to protest, organise and speak out are currently being significantly violated in 25 of the 68 active Open Government Partnership (OGP) countries, according to the CIVICUS Monitor, an online tool to track and compare civic freedoms on a global scale.   The new tool launched in October by the global civil society alliance CIVICUS rates countries based on how well they uphold civic space, made up of three fundamental rights that enable people to act collectively and make change: freedom of association, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of expression.   The OGP brings together governments and civil society with the shared aim of making governments more transparent, accountable and responsive to their citizens.   OGP countries make multiple commitments relating to civil society and public participation, which include consulting with civil society and enabling citizens to input on policy.   Of the 68 active OGP countries, the CIVICUS Monitor finds that civic space in four - Colombia, Honduras, Liberia and Mexico - is repressed, which means that those who criticise power holders risk surveillance, harassment, intimidation, imprisonment, injury and death. Civic space is also rated as repressed in Azerbaijan and Turkey, both recently declared ‘inactive’ by the OGP’s steering committee.   In the past six months, the CIVICUS Monitor has documented a wide variety of attacks on civil society in these four countries, ranging from the assassinations of five social leaders in just one week in Colombia, to the police’s use of tear gas and water cannons to disperse student protests in Honduras, and from the four-hour detention and questioning of a newspaper editor in Liberia to the murder of a community radio journalist in Mexico.   A further 21 OGP countries are rated obstructed, meaning that space for activism is heavily contested through a combination of legal and practical constraints on the full enjoyment of fundamental freedoms.   Other commitments on civic participation and civic space that OGP countries make include releasing and improving the provision of information relating to civic participation; bringing in or including citizens in oversight mechanisms to monitor government performance; and improving legal and institutional mechanisms to strengthen civil society capabilities to promote an enabling environment for participation.   “The existence of significant restrictions on civil society in more than a third of OGP countries is deeply troubling and calls into question their commitment to the principle of empowering citizens upon which the OGP was founded,” said Cathal Gilbert, lead researcher on the CIVICUS Monitor.   “OGP countries should be harnessing the potential of public participation in governance, rather than silencing government critics and harassing human rights defenders.”   Of the remaining OGP countries, civic space in 31 is rated as narrowed. A total of 12 countries are rated as open, which means that the state safeguards space for civil society and encourages platforms for dialogue.   Positively, no OGP countries fall into the CIVICUS Monitor’s closed category.   “Notably, OGP countries as a group fare better than the rest of the globe on civic space,” said Gilbert. “However, much more needs to be done collectively to ensure that commitments on public participation made by OGP countries in their national development plans are carried through.”   As heads of state and government, members of parliament, academia, business and civil society representatives meet at the OGP Summit in Paris, France, CIVICUS urges delegates to focus discussions on best practices to improve civic space conditions in OGP countries.   http://www.civicus.org/index.php/media-resources/media-releases/2664-open-government-partnership-undermined-by-threats-to-civil-society http://monitor.civicus.org/ http://gpsaknowledge.org/ http://www.opengovpartnership.org/ http://www.protectdefenders.eu/en/newsfeed.html#newsletter-article-75 http://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2017   A free and diverse media is essential to protecting Democracy in the 21st Century, says Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah, Secretary-General of CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance.   Images of protestors flooding the streets – whether in Caracas, Bucharest, Istanbul or Washington DC – send a powerful message to those in power, especially when they are plastered across newspaper front pages.   In far too many countries, the response has been to shut down the space for citizens to organise and undermine the ability for dissent to be reported.   Even in the most mature of democracies, the ability of citizens to organise and mobilise, and the freedom of journalists to report when they do, are being undermined.   In an era of rising populism and spreading curbs on fundamental freedoms, we need to do more to protect civic rights and press freedom.   When people hit the streets to express dissent, headlines are not always guaranteed. In some countries, journalists risk imprisonment, disappearance or death for reporting on voices of dissent.   In other places, the few powerful interests that control mainstream media channels are in cahoots and play down the scale or importance of protest. And the world over, independent and smaller media outlets – that are critical to diverse media – are struggling to stay afloat.   The first, and most worrying reason why protests don’t make the nightly news is because in many countries around the world journalists who cover protests are putting themselves at risk.   In countries where civic participation is restricted or closed, journalists, like activists, risk losing their jobs, their freedom and even their lives reporting on protests.   According to the CIVICUS Monitor attacks on journalists are one of the three most commonly reported violations of civic space, alongside the detention of human rights defenders and the use of excessive force during protests.   The Monitor, which measures the openness of civic space in 195 countries, found that journalists are most often attacked as a result of their political reporting on protests, conflict reporting, and for exposing government corruption.   Civil society and media exist in an ecosystem where attacks on one are likely to have an impact on the other. Where human rights defenders and civil society organisations find their freedoms under threat, so to do journalists. Policing media coverage is just one of the ways that governments close or repress civic space.   While social media and citizen journalists and bloggers have made it more difficult for mainstream media outlets to ignore mass demonstrations, some media outlets actively seek to undermine the renewed interest they generate.   Media Matters for America, a monitoring agency, has recorded repeated instances of corporate media in the United States making false claims, such as that protests are staged or protestors are paid. Instead of interviewing citizens participating in the marches, cable news programs turn to their usual group of pundits for comment.   For example, after the recent Science March, some cable television shows hosted panels featuring climate change deniers and no actual scientists.   In some cases journalists have forgotten that the voices of ordinary citizens, are just as important, if not more important, than the voices of powerful politicians and wealthy elites.   And even where journalists do seek to quote representatives from civil society they too often turn to the same narrow set of voices for comment, since smaller non-governmental organisations often lack the media resources of larger international organisations.   Another important reason why journalists do not cover protests is because they do not have the resources to do so. The economic pressures on commercial media are also harming press freedom. Independent, diverse media often lack the financial resources of media owned by wealthy corporations or governments with their own political agendas. Many media outlets now rely on donations or membership models to survive.   All of these restrictions have led many activists to turn to reporting on protests themselves. Some of the most powerful journalism now comes from citizen bloggers, often providing invaluable news from closed political spaces and behind the battle lines.   As the boundaries between citizen and professional journalists blur it is becoming increasingly important to protect the space for all of those people who seek to inform, expose and educate.   Whether it is protestors, journalists, civil society organisations, human rights defenders, or climate scientists we need to protect the ability for people to be able to express dissent. And we need to stand together.   Without journalists, scientists marching in the street, would not be able to be able to share their messages with the world. Without photojournalists, vast underestimates of crowd sizes from officials may continue to be used to undermine popular movements.   Asking questions, speaking truth to power, shining a light on corruption. These simple actions carry increased risks in 2017, as powerful elites seek to cement their positions of power. In this febrile political environment, civic space and press freedom feel more important than ever. Visit the related web page
	USA: Time for renewed vigilance for equality and human rights by Center for Economic & Social Rights (CESR)   The election of Donald Trump as 45th president of the United States begs sober reflection on the role human rights issues have played in the presidential campaign, and on the broader implications his victory has for human rights in the US and internationally.   The president-elect’s campaign for office caused worldwide consternation for the open disdain he showed for human rights and equality. Both in formal debates and off-the-cuff remarks, he denigrated women, Muslims, migrants, people of color and people with disability, among others. He boasted unashamedly about evading the civic duty to pay taxes, pledged to “cancel” the recent global agreement on climate change and threatened to dismantle health care reforms which have extended coverage to millions. In the course of his campaign, he has justified torturing detainees and sexually assaulting women, while widespread allegations have surfaced of the abuse of workers under the real estate mogul’s employment.   Many of these are human rights issues at the core of CESR’s work. The prospect of a presidency which promotes or condones human rights abuses in this way is therefore serious cause for alarm, particularly in light of the racist, repressive and misogynistic discourse and actions unleashed and given legitimacy by his campaign. As in other contexts, rhetorical vilification can be a prelude to victimization in reality, and many people across the country have reported feeling increasingly fearful for their safety and rights because of their gender, color, migration status or sexual orientation, for example.   Many of the grievances which appear to have fuelled Donald Trump’s support are also related to the economic and social rights issues on which we campaign. Deepening deprivation, growing inequality and large-scale blue-collar job losses linked to a globalized economy have fed widespread disillusionment with the political establishment and appear to have been powerful drivers of Trump’s electoral victory. As seen in many other countries, the failure of governments to address these grievances leaves a vacuum that populist politicians fill through vitriolic fear-mongering and scapegoating of migrants, Muslims, minorities and convenient “others” – even if, as in the US, members of these communities are often in reality among the most economically and politically disadvantaged. Demographic analyses of the vote reveals a country starkly divided along lines of race, geography, gender and levels of education, and indicate that Donald Trump’s support was strongest in areas with the highest levels of income inequality.   Economic inequality and its relationship to other entrenched forms of disparity and discrimination is perhaps the paramount public policy concern that this electoral outcome should bring to the fore. The gap between rich and poor in the US has escalated in recent decades to levels not seen since the 1930s. As CESR and US human rights organizations and networks have highlighted, stark income inequalities correlate with pronounced and persistent racial and gender disparities in access to education, health, housing, work and other areas of economic and social rights enjoyment.   Statements made during the campaign raise serious fears that the inequality crisis will become even more acute under the new administration. As a recent CESR report highlights, reducing economic inequality from a human rights perspective requires a set of redistributive and pre-distributive policies such as tackling discrimination, protecting labor rights and levelling the playing field through progressive taxation and well-resourced social services such as health and education.   These policies are diametrically opposed to those espoused by the president-elect. Behind the rhetorical pledge of massive job creation lies an agenda for corporate deregulation with potentially disastrous consequences for labor, social and environmental rights.   Internationally, the likely disengagement from multilateralism could put the brakes on ongoing progress to tackle fundamental global human rights concerns such as climate change, cross-border tax abuse and the sustainable development agenda.   While it has always been a challenge to push US administrations to recognize that human rights apply in the sphere of economic and social policy, advancing economic and social rights against this backdrop will likely be even more of an uphill struggle over the next four years. Longer-term, proposed appointments to the Supreme Court could affect how constitutional values of equality, human rights and social justice are understood and defended for generations to come.   Human rights guarantees contained in the US’s domestic legal order – as well as in international standards which the US historically helped to forge – represent a critical bulwark against the arbitrary abuse of power. The current context demands renewed resistance and readiness by the human rights community to deploy these safeguards whenever people’s rights are under threat from the impact of US policies, within or beyond its borders. It also demands greater efforts to articulate progressive rights-based alternatives to the trickle-down economics that are fuelling social and economic inequality and political disenfranchisement.   This means bringing a critical human rights lens to the dogmatic policy prescriptions of austerity, deregulation, liberalization and privatization that have consolidated their hold in every continent since the global financial crisis of 2008.   As an international, non-partisan organization which seeks to hold all governments accountable to their human rights obligations, CESR will support and complement the efforts of national partners to hold the new US administration accountable to its human rights obligations in all areas of public policy, and to ensure that the legal and institutional protection of all human rights – and the space to claim and defend them – is not eroded but robustly reinforced.   As part of our ongoing work to address widening economic inequality as one of the key human rights issues of our time, we will remain particularly vigilant to ensure that no government is allowed to trump the fundamental premise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that all human beings are “equal in dignity and rights”. http://bit.ly/2j2tsU1   Our duty is to find hope in darkness, by Darren Walker, Ford Foundation.   Over the past months and weeks, countless conversations with my colleagues, friends, partners, and peers in social justice have focused on the complexities and cruelties of 2016: from Brexit in the United Kingdom, to the rejection of a peace deal in Colombia, to the ongoing violence and refugee crisis in the Middle East, to, of course, America’s presidential election. In all of this, there is so much at stake for our world, so much injustice to assess, understand, and address. There is so much uncertainty.   In these times, it is easy to be discouraged. And disappointment, anger, and confusion are understandable—often reasonable—responses to the challenges we face. But we must do all we can to fight the slide into hopelessness. Here at Ford, we are working to understand and face up to some new and daunting realities. Our grantees and partners, too, are reckoning with the reverberations of recent events—and responding with fresh energy and urgency.   The dedication and vigor they bring to appreciating and challenging injustice is a statement of profound hope. Watching the gathering strength of their efforts has reminded me of the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., that “darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that”—that “hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” Those standing on the frontlines of social change are the light, and they are the love. The world desperately needs both.   Hope is not a simple thing; it may not be painless to find or even feel. As I work to understand the past year in the life of my country and our world, I find hope (along with not inconsiderable discomfort) in considering some questions about the institution I lead and the social sector as a whole.   For instance: Have we neglected to recognize and respond to working-class people, regardless of race and geography? Have we heard and heeded the frustrations of communities anxious and unsettled as their economic security erodes? Have we been too focused on familiar ground, overlooking the wider circumstances of suffering and inequality?   These questions are not easy to ask, and answers are not easy to come by. But I am committing the Ford Foundation to pursing them, and to deeper listening and learning. We must be open to the idea, for example, that as the demography and geography of inequality spreads outward, our own efforts may need to become more inclusive, embracing a variety of very different communities. After all, exclusion and hardship are widely shared. Layers of injustice abound. Our work must reach farther than it ever has.   Nearly a half century ago, during the spring of 1968, Dr. King delivered his final sermon. The moment endures in our memory because on the evening before his assassination, Dr. King shared his view from the mountaintop. But too often forgotten are his other words that extraordinary night in Memphis: his advocacy for what he called “dangerous unselfishness” inherent in what he called the “beloved community.”   “The world is all messed up,” he said then. “The nation is sick. Trouble is in the land; confusion all around,” he declared. “But I know, somehow, that only when it is dark enough can you see the stars.”   So, too, should it be for us—right here and now.   The year 2016 is not 1968, or 1860, or 1776. Our moment, and the opportunities we have to protect and pass along the torch of justice, are unique. But we can, and must, learn from history that the greatest threat we face is not terrorism, or environmental crisis, or nuclear proliferation, or the results of any one election. The greatest threat is hopelessness: the hopelessness of many millions around the globe who expressed themselves with their ballots, and the hopelessness of many millions more who expressed themselves by not voting at all.   The hopelessness of so many who are overwhelmed by the scale of the problems facing our world, and frustrated by attempts at solving them that have fallen short.   If we are to overwhelm the forces of inequality and injustice—if we are to dedicate ourselves anew to the hard and heavy lifting of building the beloved community—then the cornerstone of our efforts must be hope. I choose to be hopeful because only through the pursuit of justice can we heal. I choose to be hopeful because every day I see the indispensable contributions of so many who are shining bold and bright against the midnight sky; who are embracing their special obligation to promote “dangerous unselfishness”; who are lighting the path forward.   As Dr. King said during his last evening on this earth, “we’ve got some difficult days ahead.” Together we are poised, and prepared, to keep marching forward. By the light of our collective hope, we will press on through times that test us—and push beyond them. http://bit.ly/2fIUr9X   http://www.gallup.com/poll/201158/skeptical-trump-handle-presidential-duties.aspx http://www.newyorker.com/podcast/political-scene/anna-galland-talks-to-evan-osnos-about-the-future-of-liberal-activism   * Carr Center for Human Rights podcasts. Harvard Kennedy School Professor Kathryn Sikkink discusses how human rights efforts over the last century have largely succeeded in improving the living conditions across the globe, and that even though the work is far from over and setbacks are inevitable, there is plenty of reason to have hope for continued improvement. Sushma Raman, executive director of the Carr Center for Human Rights digs into the challenges facing human rights organizations on both the international and local levels and how they are rising up to meet the challenge. (external link): http://bit.ly/2kEJW5X http://bit.ly/2kNfKZ0   * Carter Center Human Rights Defenders Forum: http://video.cartercenter.org/ Visit the related web page
	View more stories