Research framework and broader academic knowledge base
Serbia: documented application of the same framework
How can an organization be suffocated by inspections, costs, and smears without being formally banned?
The organization can be practically shut down by making its work constantly more expensive, slower and risky, although the ban has never been imposed. Frequent inspections, vague reports, funding restrictions, frozen accounts, expensive court proceedings, the loss of space and the label of “traitors” spend money and time and distract members, donors and partners.
The management then chooses between the basic program and everyday survival, while the government claims that the organization still exists freely. The rules on money and accountability can legitimately protect the public, so the very existence of control is not a problem. Political asphyxiation shows their selective and frequent application, disproportionate punishment, weak possibility of appeal and joint effect of several measures aimed specifically at critical organizations.
Financial and reporting rules can really protect the public. The problem is shown by unequal implementation, excessive punishment, poor legal protection and a common burden of all measures.
Works supporting this answer, with their evidence type and an explanation of how they relate to the claim.
review more research
Rutzen, D. (2015), „Authoritarianism Goes Global (II): Civil Society Under Assault“, Journal of Democracy 26(4): 28–39.
- Contribution to this answer
- Rutzen shows how the space for civil society can be narrowed without banning all organizations: the government introduces increasingly expensive rules on registration, foreign financing and special statuses such as “foreign agent”. The organization still formally exists, but every part of its work becomes more difficult, risky and politically suspicious.
review more research
Toepler, S., Zimmer, A., Fröhlich, C. i Obuch, K. (2020), „The Changing Space for NGOs: Civil Society in Authoritarian and Hybrid Regimes“, VOLUNTAS 31: 649–662.
- Contribution to this answer
- Toepler and co-authors show that the government can combine restrictions with selective cooperation: politically demanding organizations increase costs and narrow the space, while giving more appropriate groups money, access and legitimacy. Thus, civil society is changing without a general ban.
review more research
Earl, J. (2003), „Tanks, Tear Gas, and Taxes: Toward a Theory of Movement Repression“, Sociological Theory 21(1): 44–68.
- Contribution to this answer
- Earl is particularly useful here because it shows that a repressive measure does not have to look like a police action: taxes, legal rules, administrative obstacles and other indirect instruments can severely limit the movement's ability to act.
comparing several countries or cases
Schleutker, E. (2021), „Co-optation and Repression of Religion in Authoritarian Regimes“, Politics and Religion 14(2): 209–240.
- Contribution to this answer
- Schleutker shows the same logic on religious organizations: the government can include and reward one group, and restrict and punish others. For inspections and administrative exhaustion is not the most direct work, but it shows well that repression and co-optation can work together.
Explain how the system works
Ritter, E. H. i Conrad, C. R. (2016), „Preventing and Responding to Dissent: The Observational Challenges of Explaining Strategic Repression“, American Political Science Review 110(1): 85–99.
- Contribution to this answer
- Ritter and Conrad are here more theoretical fences: they show that the state can act preventively and raise the cost of organizing before an open protest arises. They do not study concrete inspections, tax controls or smear campaigns against organizations.
Is a relevant source missing? Send it to us.
Suggest a source or report an error in this answer →