The popular and academic literature has increasingly focused on a perceived resurgence of authoritarianism, illiberalism, populism, or even fascism. The broad narrative arc focuses on the nature of the regimes under consideration, often comparing and contrasting contemporary governments to egregious examples of authoritarianism from the 20th Century. What this type of examination misses are those regimes which exhibit authoritarian tendencies but which are not considered to be authoritarian regimes. More research is required to examine authoritarian practices (after Glasius) rather than regimes, particularly related to civic space which is highly sensitive to authoritarian practices. Deeper research is needed on the actual and everyday practices of authoritarianism on how civil society actors engage with crises.
The goals of this continuing research project are to both deepen the empirical evidence base for studying the relationship between civil society actors and states which engage in authoritarian practices – particularly in environments of political, human rights, or humanitarian crises; and better theorize how this relationship develops. A variety of perspectives from a broad spectrum of cases must be developed in order to formulate a sound theoretical underpinning of the nexus between civil society actors and authoritarian practices in times of crisis. For example, each region of the world has a different view of civil society development and state formation. Different types of civil society actors which operate in times of crisis are pertinent, such as human rights organizations, humanitarian aid actors, and grassroots community groups. Advocacy activities also play a crucial role in civil society action, particularly in contexts permeated by authoritarian practices. In these scenarios, civil society actors can bring attention to human rights abuses, lobby for policy changes, and mobilize resources to address humanitarian crises. However, advocacy in such contexts is also fraught with challenges and requires greater research attention.
The scope of this Research Topic will include the following civil society actors: Local, national, and international humanitarian aid organizations; local, national, and international human rights organizations; and other types of community-based groups which work on crisis response.
Contextually, the scope is limited to periods and environments of crisis, be they political, humanitarian, or human rights. Broadly speaking, these are contexts where illiberal practices are prevalent. The scope of states are those which implement authoritarian practices, such as constraining civic space. Articles should examine the nexus between these types of civil society actors with states implementing authoritarian practices against the backdrop of illiberal practices. Scope can include both the strategies and practices of states in such situations, but also those that civil society actors do, or could, deploy in response. Articles can focus on micro (local), meso (national), or macro (international) levels of analysis, as well as the (re)negotiation, interpretation and translation of strategies to navigate authoritarian contexts and practices across these levels. Research on the role of advocacy is also welcome.
Articles can be empirical case studies or attempts at theorizing the relationship between states and civil society actors, including aid actors and organizations.
The popular and academic literature has increasingly focused on a perceived resurgence of authoritarianism, illiberalism, populism, or even fascism. The broad narrative arc focuses on the nature of the regimes under consideration, often comparing and contrasting contemporary governments to egregious examples of authoritarianism from the 20th Century. What this type of examination misses are those regimes which exhibit authoritarian tendencies but which are not considered to be authoritarian regimes. More research is required to examine authoritarian practices (after Glasius) rather than regimes, particularly related to civic space which is highly sensitive to authoritarian practices. Deeper research is needed on the actual and everyday practices of authoritarianism on how civil society actors engage with crises.
The goals of this continuing research project are to both deepen the empirical evidence base for studying the relationship between civil society actors and states which engage in authoritarian practices – particularly in environments of political, human rights, or humanitarian crises; and better theorize how this relationship develops. A variety of perspectives from a broad spectrum of cases must be developed in order to formulate a sound theoretical underpinning of the nexus between civil society actors and authoritarian practices in times of crisis. For example, each region of the world has a different view of civil society development and state formation. Different types of civil society actors which operate in times of crisis are pertinent, such as human rights organizations, humanitarian aid actors, and grassroots community groups. Advocacy activities also play a crucial role in civil society action, particularly in contexts permeated by authoritarian practices. In these scenarios, civil society actors can bring attention to human rights abuses, lobby for policy changes, and mobilize resources to address humanitarian crises. However, advocacy in such contexts is also fraught with challenges and requires greater research attention.
The scope of this Research Topic will include the following civil society actors: Local, national, and international humanitarian aid organizations; local, national, and international human rights organizations; and other types of community-based groups which work on crisis response.
Contextually, the scope is limited to periods and environments of crisis, be they political, humanitarian, or human rights. Broadly speaking, these are contexts where illiberal practices are prevalent. The scope of states are those which implement authoritarian practices, such as constraining civic space. Articles should examine the nexus between these types of civil society actors with states implementing authoritarian practices against the backdrop of illiberal practices. Scope can include both the strategies and practices of states in such situations, but also those that civil society actors do, or could, deploy in response. Articles can focus on micro (local), meso (national), or macro (international) levels of analysis, as well as the (re)negotiation, interpretation and translation of strategies to navigate authoritarian contexts and practices across these levels. Research on the role of advocacy is also welcome.
Articles can be empirical case studies or attempts at theorizing the relationship between states and civil society actors, including aid actors and organizations.