SOCS2024

• VENEZUELA: ‘The Darién Gap is claiming many lives that governments cannot even quantify’

  CIVICUS speaks with Ana María Diez, president of Coalition for Venezuela, about the humanitarian crisis of Venezuelan migrants trying to reach the USA by land.

  Coalition for Venezuela is a network of Venezuelan civil society organisations that promote and defend human rights, freedoms and democratic values, provide humanitarian assistance inside and outside Venezuela and promote the development of host countries of Venezuelan citizens.

  What effects have recent changes in US immigration policy had on Venezuelan migration?

  Changes in US migration policy have not had substantial positive effects. People are still placing their bets on going north and coyotes continue to take advantage of the people they smuggle across borders.

  The new US policy has not been very successful in terms of stemming the tide of migration. There has been no effective communication to explain to migrants how humanitarian parole works. This is a temporary stay permit provided to Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan and Venezuelan nationals for urgent humanitarian or public benefit reasons, and offers a legal way to stay in the USA for at least one year without a visa.

  Humanitarian parole has a number of strict requirements: one must be outside the USA, have a sponsor and a valid and unexpired passport, pass a series of US security checks, present a series of certificates, such as proof of vaccination, and prove reasons of either humanitarian urgency or significant public benefit. Hence it cannot be considered an alternative measure for people who decide to cross the Darién Gap, the dense rainforest area on the border between Colombia and Panama.

  What is it like to go through the Darién Gap?

  The Darién connects South and Central America and is an obligatory passage on the way north for those making the journey by land. It is therefore the main route for the most vulnerable Venezuelan migrants. It is possible to leave Colombia at many points, but all routes converge on the Darién, which migrants call ‘the jungle from hell’. All those who have crossed it say they underestimated the difficulty of going through the jungle.

  A little over a month ago, I was at the San Vicente migration station in the Panamanian province of Darién. This is the first place people arrive after crossing, where they receive medical attention. Sometimes, out of groups of 10 people our teams spoke to, all 10 – men, women, children and older people – had been raped or sexually abused.

  The children would arrive in a state of psychological shock: they would immediately start talking in unison about the dead bodies they had seen on the road. This marks them deeply. These children have had their childhoods twice interrupted: first by migration, and second by the violence they have witnessed or experienced in the process.

  It is impossible to talk about the Darién without talking about trafficking networks, human smuggling, sexual abuse and children crossing unaccompanied, sometimes even for the second time. In migratory processes such as these, we are dealing with children, older people, entire families who even travel with their pets. Their vulnerability exposes them to all kinds of abuse. The Darién is claiming many lives that neither the Colombian nor Panamanian governments can quantify. Many bodies are not claimed by anyone.

  What would be the consequences of the closure of the Darién Gap that Panama claims to be considering?

  When I hear that Panama is thinking of closing the Darién crossing, what I really hear is Panama asking for help. Panama needs regional support to share the responsibility of dealing with this issue. These are not their migrants, but that should not be an excuse for not integrating many of them into their country. Panama simply wants the migration flow to disappear, which is not going to happen.

  The closure of the Darién as such is not possible because it is not a clearly defined road but rather a series of 20 or so passes through a very extensive jungle. There is no way to close a jungle. It remains to be seen what kind of forceful measures, as the government has called them, Panama takes. But I don’t think they will have much effect, as people will continue to look for other routes into the jungle, as well as sea routes to get to Panama and continue their way north.

  How are Venezuelan migrants treated in the USA?

  When a city, state or country receives large migratory flows in a very short time, there tend to be spikes in xenophobia. This is happening in many places that have received large flows of Venezuelans and other migrants.

  However, there is a contrast between government policies and the often receptive and fraternal attitudes of the American people. These have contrasted sharply with the policies adopted, for example, in the state of Florida, which is a state historically built and inhabited by immigrants and the children of immigrants.

  Generally speaking, the American people, who have historically received immigrants from all over the world, are open to receiving Venezuelans under appropriate conditions so they can integrate into their country. What’s needed is for US policy to move in that direction, starting with the right to seek refuge while in US territory, which is one of the things that humanitarian parole doesn’t allow.

  What does Coalition for Venezuela do, and what support does it need to keep doing it?

  Coalition for Venezuela began five years ago with 31 organisations, and today it includes 98 legally constituted and federated organisations, led by Venezuelan migrants and refugees, and has a presence in 23 countries. Our network facilitates the sharing of knowledge, good practices and successful forms of intervention, and allows us to cover issues ranging from humanitarian assistance to the defence of civil and political rights.

  Despite all this work, it is only now in 2023 that we have received our first funding. We need all the help we can get, especially to work on strengthening the capacities of our organisations. We also need help to go directly to the organisations in our network, specifically in Central America. In the area of humanitarian action there are many intermediaries, and organisations on the ground are the last link. Impact would be multiplied many times over if aid and funding were directed directly to community-based organisations.

  Coalition for Venezuela does not limit its work to Venezuelans. We see the needs of people of other nationalities and assist them. We also work with networks of migrants and refugees from other parts of the world because we want to learn from other, longer-standing processes. For us this is a relatively new crisis. We Venezuelans were used to receiving migrants and exiles, people fleeing dictatorships. And now it is our turn to migrate: about 20 per cent of our population has left our country. We are working with others and learning from them, which makes us proud.

  Civic space in Venezuela is rated ‘repressed‘ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Coalition for Venezuela through itswebsite,YouTube channel orFacebook andInstagram profiles, and follow@coalicionve on Twitter.

• VENEZUELA: ‘The opposition could once again become a credible threat to the authoritarian regime’

  CIVICUS speaks with Rafael Uzcátegui, general coordinator of the Venezuelan Programme for Human Rights Education Action (Provea), about the results of recent opposition primaries ahead of the 2024 elections.

  Provea is a Venezuelan civil society organisation dedicated to raising awareness among the most vulnerable groups in society about their rights and providing legal support to victims of human rights violations.

  What is the opposition’s strategy for the 2024 elections?

  The opposition’s strategy is to promote a joint candidacy, supported by the majority of the opposition, to face President Nicolás Maduro in the upcoming elections. This is an easy thing to say, but in the current conditions it is a big challenge. After the defeat of the strategy of exerting as much pressure as possible, which climaxed with protests in 2017 and Juan Guaidó’s so-called interim presidency in early 2019, tensions and misgivings ensued and the opposition fragmented. People lost confidence in its leadership. According to opinion polls conducted towards the end of the pandemic, Guaidó was rejected as much as was Maduro. More than 80 per cent of people did not want either of them.

  In other words, there has been a crisis of representation affecting both the government and the opposition. A new strategy had to be adopted, but this was not sufficiently explained to the public. Nor was there a public assessment of the mistakes made by the traditional opposition leadership, so that distrust and resignation increased among the public. The feeling that there was nothing that could be done was so great that analysts and political leaders alike stated that hopes should be placed not on the 2024 elections but on those to be held in 2030.

  But in the space of a year things have changed. The opposition primary elections have served to legitimise a joint candidacy through popular consultation. At first they seemed like a mere bureaucratic formality, but as the date approached, the primaries became a political event that exceeded the expectations of the organisers. Despite being held under conditions of absolute censorship, with physical attacks on candidates at their campaign events, with limited resources and under veiled or explicit threats from the authorities to dissuade people from participating, more than two million people voted.

  This showed that there is a great need for change and restored democratic society’s confidence that change is possible. It confirmed that the strategy should be focused on elections and created a bottom-up consensus not only on a potential unitary candidacy but also on a new opposition leadership.

  The return to democracy requires two key elements: the construction of agreements among the opposition and the recovery of citizens’ confidence in democratic leadership. The opposition primaries were an important first step. If it can take further steps in the same direction, the opposition could once again become a credible threat to the authoritarian regime.

  How has the government reacted to the opposition primaries?

  The government underestimated the effects of the primaries: it thought that censorship, disinformation and harassment would dissuade people from participating, so the high turnout was the first big surprise. It was clear that many people still thought of voting as a safe mechanism for expressing their opinions. The second surprise was the overwhelming support received by candidate María Corina Machado across all geographies and among all social groups that voted.

  Machado had been criticised on the grounds that her discourse only resonated with middle class and affluent groups, but the support she received reflects a widespread aspiration for a better life. Machado even won support from the ruling party’s most loyal constituencies, which partly explained its desperate response, which has been to try to annul the primaries through the courts.

  The Supreme Court of Justice – characterised by the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, a mechanism set up by the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council, as part of a machinery for persecuting dissent – has ruled to ‘suspend’ the effects of the primaries on the grounds that fraud was committed.

  At the same time, in an attempt to recover the initiative, the government has tried to exacerbate nationalist sentiment by activating its dispute over the territory of Essequiba Guiana, claimed by Venezuela but under Guyanese control, and has called for a consultative referendum on the issue on 3 December.

  Will Machado be able to run in 2024, or will the government seek to disqualify her candidacy?

  It will be a major challenge to ensure that Machado’s candidacy is enabled and the other recommendations of the European Union (EU) Election Observation Mission for elections with democratic guarantees are complied with. This is the time to fight against the authorities’ tactic of disqualifying any political leader popular enough to win key positions through elections.

  The existence of conditions for the exercise of the rights of assembly and participation will depend on several factors operating simultaneously: the strengthening of the democratic camp, government-opposition dialogue, the recovery of citizen confidence and pressure from the international community.

  The road towards 2024 will be long. If Machado ends up being disqualified, the opposition should establish a consensus mechanism, in which she should play an important role. It must be clear at all times that the strategy for a democratic transition necessarily involves elections.

  What are the chances of achieving a democratic transfer of power?

  The principle of democratic alternation is completely alien to Chavismo, the ruling movement founded by Hugo Chávez. It came to power to stay in power forever and views its ‘revolutionary’ conception of the world to be the only truth and an inescapable way to improve people’s living conditions. As in Cuba and Nicaragua, the government is forced to hold elections, even if these are no more than a simulation, for a number of reasons, not least of which is the need to gain a certain degree of legitimacy in the eyes of the international community. There is only a fine line between simulation and farce, so elections must be organised in such a way that makes them appear genuine.

  One positive factor is that Venezuela is currently under investigation by the International Criminal Court and under the scrutiny of mechanisms such as the Independent International Mission. This scrutiny is a deterrent to open and widespread repression. These are cracks that the democratic camp can exploit to ensure greater democratic guarantees in the upcoming elections.

  In the coming months we will witness a tug of war between government and opposition. One negative message we are receiving from various international voices is that the 2024 elections, regardless of how they are organised, will be a milestone for normalising relations with Venezuela. I think Maduro is unwilling to organise an election that he might lose, so he will go to great lengths to divide and discourage the opposition vote.

  Overcoming these hurdles will require that synergy is maintained between a cohesive political leadership, a citizenry highly motivated to participate and pressure from the international community, especially from progressive forces in the region, to prevent the more radical sectors of Chavismo and the armed forces hindering a potential transition. It is important to ensure that the more democratic sectors of Chavismo are given guarantees so that they can find a place for themselves in the transition. Ultimately, it is a question of establishing the right incentives so the costs of leaving are lower than those of remaining in power by any means.

  How is civil society working to ensure the transparency and competitiveness of the electoral process?

  Human rights organisations have endorsed the seven key recommendations of the EU Election Observation Mission report: strengthening the separation of powers, abolishing disqualifications, conducting a public education campaign on voting, imposing sanctions for electoral misconduct, enabling balanced media coverage, repealing the so-called ‘hate law’ to prevent self-censorship and allow for freedom of expression, and introducing a combination of incentives and sanctions to have trained and accredited polling station authorities on election day.

  Civil society organisations specialising in electoral rights are leading all advocacy actions in this regard, with other organisations supporting them. On 17 October, the government and the opposition signed the ‘Partial Agreement on the Promotion of Political Rights and Electoral Guarantees for All’, known as the Barbados Agreement.

  The government is supposed to honour this agreement. However, it has already shown it has no intention to do so. By initiating legal proceedings against the primaries, it has breached the first point of the agreement, which states that each political sector is free to select its candidate for the elections.

  What should the international community do to help Venezuela have free and competitive elections in 2024?

  There is no way to achieve a transition to democracy in Venezuela without the accompaniment and pressure of the international community. For now, the USA has taken the lead by encouraging the Barbados Agreement and establishing a mechanism for lifting economic sanctions.

  However, sanctions against human rights violators and the embargo on arms sales should be retained. International initiatives to monitor and protect human rights in Venezuela must also remain active. The government is operating to prevent the extension of the mandate of the Independent International Mission, which is due to be decided by the UN Human Rights Council in 2024. This is the most important available mechanism for uncovering the facts, and its work complements that of the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

  Finally, it is key for progressive governments in Latin America, such as those of Brazil, Chile and Colombia, to issue public and private messages to the Venezuelan authorities so that they agree to hold elections with democratic guarantees.

  ---

  Civic space in Venezuela is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Provea through itswebsite orFacebook account, subscribe to itsYouTube channel and follow@proveaong on Instagram and@_Provea and@fanzinero on Twitter.

• VENEZUELA: ‘With the new NGO law, the government aims to take control of the entire associational fabric’

  CIVICUS speaks with Rigoberto Lobo Puentes, founder of Promotion, Education and Defence of Human Rights (Promoción, Educación y Defensa en Derechos Humanos, PROMEDEHUM), about Venezuela’s NGO bill which, if passed, will further hinder civil society’s work.

  PROMEDEHUM brings together people whose common goal is education about and the promotion and defence of human rights.

  How has civic space in Venezuela changed recently?

  Civic space has experienced tensions for more than a decade. In 2010 the government implemented the Law of National Sovereignty and Self-Determination to restrict access to funding by human rights organisations, citing alleged external threats against the Venezuelan government. This law was only the first step. Starting in 2016, when the ruling party lost control of the National Assembly, the government began to issue emergency decrees granting powers to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to audit any agreement signed with international bodies by organisations or individuals to implement projects in Venezuela. This was part of a strategy to suffocate human rights organisations financially until they were forced to shut down.

  In 2020 the government body that regulates the banking system ordered banks to monitor the financial operations of civil society organisations (CSOs), supposedly to prevent money laundering and terrorism financing. Following criticism from international human rights protection bodies, in 2021 the provisions of the National Office against Organised Crime and Terrorist Financing in relation to CSOs were slightly amended. However, they continue to violate international human rights standards. Among other things, they provided for the creation of a new body in charge of authorising the registration and operation of CSOs and obliged CSOs to provide sensitive information.

  This attack caused fissures in civil society, as many thought that since the focus was on human rights organisations, other CSOs, including humanitarian organisations, were out of harm’s way, even if they also in one way or another defended human rights. Many CSOs said they had no problem with the obligation to register. The situation was very confusing. It was never clear where the registry was or would be, and in each city, organisations were given different information.

  In 2021, the ruling party-controlled National Assembly unanimously approved a national legislative plan that included a Law on International Cooperation, which also established a mandatory registry for CSOs. The aim again was to limit access to funding for CSOs.

  In 2022, the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force refuted the idea that all these regulations were needed. Its assessment of Venezuela concluded that there was no evidence the proposed or implemented CSO registries could prevent potential abuses linked to terrorism financing.

  Finally, in January 2024 the National Assembly approved in first reading of the draft Law on Control, Regularisation, Operations and Financing of Non-Governmental and Related Organisations, better known as the NGO law. If passed, this law will allow the government to further restrict the functioning of civil society, as it broadly prohibits ‘political activities’ without clearly defining what this refers to, and could result in the imposition of sanctions or the closure of CSOs deemed to be engaging in ‘political activities’. In the session where the bill was approved, more than 60 CSOs were singled out as enemies and traitors to the homeland.

  The continued threats to and vilification and persecution of CSOs and human rights defenders, and restrictions and attacks on media and journalists, raids on offices and jailing of humanitarian workers, have created a climate of great fear. Many CSOs have lost members, some have closed, and many human rights defenders have migrated for various reasons, including because they have been persecuted or fear persecution in the near future. Some organisations, including media outlets, have adopted self-censorship or changed the nature of their activities to prevent reprisals.

  What impacts would the NGO law have in this context?

  The NGO law seeks to limit citizen participation and human rights advocacy. It would turn the freedom of association into a matter of public order, exposing organisations to surveillance and police control. Organisations that fail to register or disclose their sources of funding could face fines, deregistration and criminal prosecution. They could be criminalised under charges of terrorism, money laundering, destabilisation, conspiracy and foreign interference.

  Although the draft law may appear to target only human rights organisations, its impacts will be much broader, as it aims to take control of the entire associational fabric. All organisational forms, including political parties and education and academic organisations, are potential targets. Victims of human rights violations could lose all legal support. People affected by Venezuela’s humanitarian emergency could lose access to civil society humanitarian programmes, which could be replaced by government programmes with restrictive access conditions.

  In short, the government seeks a tailor-made civil society. It has an interest in the continuity of humanitarian organisations, as they relieve it of a burden and help it maintain an image of openness with the international community. But it wants humanitarian organisations to play a purely welfare role, with no connection to human rights, and to refrain from publishing any information that might project a negative image of Venezuela.

  The government has already made progress in this area. To some extent it already controls the activities of humanitarian organisations and obtains constant information on their activities throughout Venezuela.

  Why has the NGO law been revived after it was put on hold last year?

  The government has moved forward with this law as prospects increase of an election in the near future. The law can be used not just against human rights CSOs. It can be used against any organisational form that is considered a space for critical thought or dissent. This particularly applies to CSOs working on civil and political rights issues, demanding electoral transparency, monitoring campaigns and observing elections.

  From the government’s perspective, civil society jeopardises its prospects of staying in power. Under fair electoral conditions, civil society’s monitoring, documentation and denunciation of human rights violations perpetrated by an already unpopular government could harm its electoral standing. For years the government has sought to subdue, suffocate or nullify CSOs, and this will intensify as it faces the need to ensure its continuity in power.

  The NGO law had been suspended but not forgotten. The government simply waited for the right time to resume its attacks. Recently, there have been accusations against and arrests of members of the military, political parties and journalists in connection with an alleged assassination plot that has been classed as terrorism. This is part of a situation created by the government to justify actions to neutralise those who might become obstacles in the face of an election. In this context, the possibility of the NGO law being passed should not be ruled out.

  How have civil society and the public reacted to these attacks?

  Despite the seriousness of the law, there is a lot of misinformation and a high level of ignorance among Venezuelan citizens. Even some CSOs are unaware of its existence or its importance.

  However, civil society has issued numerous criticisms. Between 2022 and 2024, national and international CSOs have published at least 15 statements and analyses of the NGO law and the law on international cooperation. Numerous forums, talks and awareness campaigns have been held, inside and outside Venezuela.

  Many organisations and human rights defenders have participated in interactive sessions at the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council and in side events at the UN, the Organization of American States and the Summit of the Americas, and have submitted reports to human rights bodies. As a result of this advocacy, between 2021 and 2023, 11 statements and reports about these laws were published by international bodies.

  Those of us outside Venezuela have also advocated with the governments of our host countries. In Argentina, where I am at the moment, politicians and civil society have publicly condemned the NGO law.

  The Venezuelan government doubled down and on 12 January launched a public consultation on the law, without making the official text of the draft law public or inviting human rights CSOs to participate. According to the information that has come to light, most of the participants in the consultation have been state officials, including police officers. From what we have been able to observe in consultation events, which take place relatively spontaneously in various places and without an established format, and in the discussions on the issue in the National Assembly, the prevailing discourse has delegitimised CSOs, which are referred to as enemies of the state.

  What guarantees does Venezuelan civil society need to keep doing its work?

  To continue our advocacy work in defence of civic space we need more international organisations and people to come on board to help report on the deteriorating situation. CSOs need access to more accurate and reliable information to help build alliances more quickly and effectively.

  Venezuelan CSOs continue to work to communicate any changes that occur and to raise the alarm when attacks on rights take place. We continue to advocate with other states, especially when there are changes of government that could affect international policies of states. One imminent risk is of the non-renewal of the mandate of the International Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela, established by the UN Human Rights Council in 2019. This would be a serious blow to Venezuelan civil society.

  Venezuelan organisations should also evaluate and rethink strategies in terms of the impact of the information we produce. We should better showcase the strengths of the Venezuelan human rights movement. Perhaps proactive transparency, to the extent that it does not put organisations and their members at greater risk, could serve to influence both the international community and the public. It is crucial that people in Venezuela understand the dimensions of the losses that the deterioration of civic space and the extinction of CSOs pose to our country.

  ---

  Civic space in Venezuela is rated ‘closed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with PROMEDEHUM through itswebsite orFacebook account, and follow it onInstagram and Twitter.

• VIETNAM: ‘The government hates losing face and has zero tolerance for criticism’

  
  CIVICUS speaks about recent arrests of leading environmental activists in Vietnam with Penelope Faulkner, President of Quê Me: Vietnam Committee on Human Rights (VCHR). The crackdown came just months after the Vietnamese government signed a deal to receive billions of dollars of international aid to tackle climate change, partly on the condition that it would involve grassroots activists in the effort.

  VCHR is a civil society organisation (CSO) founded in Paris in 1975 to promote and defend civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights in Vietnam. Working closely with other CSOs, it monitors human rights abuses, informs international opinion through reports and press alerts and mobilises international support for human rights and the release of prisoners of conscience in Vietnam.

  Has the situation of Vietnamese climate activists improved following the deal signed by the government to receive international aid to tackle climate change?

  The jailing of prominent climate activist Hòang Thị Minh Hồng on bogus charges of tax evasion answers your question. Hòang Thị Minh Hồng is founder and former CEO of CHANGE, a CSO that advocates for action on climate change, the environment and wildlife protection. She is a high-profile environmental activist and former Obama Foundation scholar, and was listed by Forbes magazine in 2019 as one of the 50 most influential women in Vietnam. She was forced to close CHANGE in 2022 in the wake of the arrests of other environmental rights activists, after being harassed by the government.

  Her arrest therefore came as a shock, but not a surprise. Her arrest is eminently political, because she has access to a high-level audience in the global environmental community, and her actions and international appeals have a strong influence on the movement for climate change worldwide.

  Hòang Thị Minh Hồng was arrested in June 2023. The Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) was signed in late 2022. To secure this US$15.5 billion deal, Vietnam pledged to involve civil society in accelerating the country’s shift from coal to renewable energy. Yet six months later, they broke this pledge, and the crackdown continues.

  Just this month, Vietnam arrested another prominent environmental rights defender, Ngô Thị Tố Liên, executive director of the Vietnam Initiative for Energy Transition. It is still unclear what charges she faces, but the trumped-up charge of tax evasion is a predictable option. At the time of her arrest, her organisation was working with the United Nations (UN) Development Programme to help implement the JETP.

  Ms Tố Liên is the seventh high-profile environmental rights defender arrested since the government launched this crackdown in June 2021. Vietnam clearly has no political will to respect its international commitments, and the repression of grassroots activists is bound to continue.

  Why is the Vietnamese government cracking down on the grassroots climate movement?

  Up until now, government repression had largely been targeted at political and religious dissidents, human rights defenders and activists calling for freedom and political reforms. Vietnam uses political repression, threats, harassment, arrests and detention under vaguely worded ‘national security’ provisions in the Criminal Code to crack down ruthlessly on bloggers, journalists, followers of non-recognised religious groups, people who participate in demonstrations and civil society activists from all walks of life. At least 200 prisoners of conscience are languishing in Vietnam’s prisons today, some serving sentences of up to 20 years in extremely harsh conditions.

  Until recently, the Vietnamese government did not perceive environmental rights defenders as a threat. On the contrary, the authorities have benefited massively from the diverse activities of Vietnamese associations in the fields of development and environmental protection, as well as from the substantial contributions of international CSOs working in Vietnam. In a recent report published in official media, Vietnam said it had received over US$677 million from international environmental CSOs between 2020 and 2022.

  Two elements drastically changed this: the ratification of the European Union (EU)-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA), which came into force in August 2020, and the impact of the rising global movement to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

  As in all EU free trade agreements, EVFTA provides for a civil society pillar to monitor implementation of the chapter on trade and sustainable development, which includes environmental issues and labour rights. The pillar consists of two domestic advisory groups (DAGs), one in the EU and one in Vietnam.

  Mai Phan Lợi and Bạch Hùng Dương, leaders of the Centre for Media Educating Community, and lawyer Đặng Đình Bách, chair of the Law and Policy of Sustainable Development Research Centre, were Steering Committee members of VNGO-EVFTA, a civil society network created in Vietnam to raise awareness about EVFTA and encourage participation in the Vietnamese DAG. As such, they actively promoted the independent role of civil society in the monitoring process.

  These actions put them at odds with the government, whose intent was to maintain the Vietnamese DAG under tight state control. In June 2022, the three men were arrested and sentenced to terms of 30 months to five years in prison for alleged tax evasion. On 10 September 2023, just one day before US President Joe Biden’s visit to Vietnam, Mai Phan Lợi was given early release. But Đặng Đình Bách, who has refused to plead guilty or repay any alleged tax demands, is serving a five-year sentence in Prison No. 6 in Nghe An, where conditions are extremely harsh.

  How did the global movement against fossil fuels become a factor in the crackdown?

  The Vietnamese government hates losing face. It tolerates activists when they support government development programmes but has zero tolerance for criticism, especially in the international arena. And the ‘crime’ of this new generation of climate change activists in the eyes of the Vietnamese government is to speak out openly to advocate for cleaner energy policies in Vietnam.

  Đặng Đình Bách joined 353 CSOs from 58 countries in signing a letter to  the G7 Summit calling on world leaders to ‘stop all fuel finance from bilateral and multilateral funding sources, and encourage other governments to do the same’. Award-winning environmentalist Ngụy Thị Khanh, who was also sentenced to two years in prison for tax evasion in June 2022, had written to the government to denounce the disconnect between Vietnam’s international pledges to reduce carbon emissions and the Communist Party’s Power Development Plan aimed at building 27 new coal-fired power plants between 2021 and 2030. She also signed the Hanoi Declaration alongside other CSOs calling on the government to ‘guarantee implementation of provisions in the 2013 Constitution and related texts concerning grassroots democracy, which require consultations with the people and people’s representatives on energy projects from the very moment of their conception’.

  For Vietnam, these high-level public declarations are tantamount to threats against national security, and the authorities decided to silence their voices by any means. To avoid international condemnation, instead of charging them under national security laws, it has resorted to the old pretext of tax evasion charges, using loopholes and vague wording in tax laws to silence environmental rights defenders.

  Our organisation, VCHR, was among the first to denounce this crackdown on environmental rights defenders, which we see as the tip of the iceberg in a new and far-reaching assault on civil society, and we continue to denounce this at every opportunity. This month we presented the human rights situation in Vietnam at a meeting of the EU DAG in Brussels.

  How much space for civil society is there in Vietnam?

  In Vietnam’s one-party state, the space for civil society has always been restricted. However, in recent years the authorities have developed a whole range of tools, including new laws, technologies and repressive methods to stifle civil society voices.

  Despite government censorship, the internet used to provide a vital space for civil society, but the Cybersecurity Law and other regulations have seriously affected freedom of expression online. One prominent blogger, Nguyễn Anh Tuấn, recently left Vietnam to live in Canada because since the Cybersecurity Law came into force in 2019 he had found it impossible to continue any meaningful activism.

  To suppress protests, the government has set up squads of anti-riot police all over the country who are ready to intervene at a local level to nip protests in the bud and prevent them gaining momentum.

  New regulations have been enacted to limit CSO access to international funding and ban them organising conferences on topics such as human rights. We have documented these, and many other developments, in a recent report we published jointly with the International Federation for Human Rights. Despite these difficulties, civil society activists keep on. They are extremely brave and resilient. I admire them immensely.

  These restrictions also make it extremely difficult for CSOs such as VCHR, based in Paris, to support activists in Vietnam. We stay in contact with movements in Vietnam and circulate information in Vietnamese. VCHR has also conducted in-country human rights training, notably on freedom of religion or belief for the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam’s youth movement. However, the responsibility of supporting activists without putting them in danger is extremely heavy, and this work is getting increasingly difficult. I can happily say that no one was ever arrested because of VCHR’s training or other programmes, and this was thanks to the trust and confidence built over many years working in Vietnam.

  What international support does Vietnamese civil society need?

  The international community should do far more to denounce Vietnam’s repressive policies and practices. As a human rights defender for many decades, I am always surprised how Vietnam manages to escape condemnation for human rights abuses that would cause outcry if they happened in China, Myanmar or elsewhere. Political prisoners are dying in Vietnam due to ill-treatment and lack of medical care. Journalists and bloggers are serving 10 or 15-year sentences simply for exchanging emails. Now environmental activists are being imprisoned for trying to create a cleaner environment for their people. Yet at the same time, the UN Secretary-General applauds Vietnam at the UN General Assembly as a shining example of a country committed to climate change. How can this be?

  Economic pressure should be applied when Vietnam fails to uphold its commitments. The JETP should be blocked until Vietnam releases all environmental rights defenders, ceases the current crackdown and guarantees the involvement of civil society in this process. Countries with bilateral trade agreements should use them to press for human rights progress in Vietnam. So much can be done. VCHR is doing its best to amplify the voices of activists in Vietnam and engage in international advocacy to call for greater pressure from the international community. It is a long and hard path, but I believe that in the long run, as the song goes, we shall overcome.

  ---

  Get in touch withVCHRthrough itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@vchr2016 on Twitter.

  Civic space in Vietnam is rated ‘closed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

• WOMEN’S RIGHTS: ‘Violence against women is a global crisis that needs urgent attention’

  

  CIVICUS speaks about civil society’s role in the fight against gender-based violence with Lina AbiRafeh, a feminist activist, women’s rights expert and Senior Advisor for Global Women’s Rights at the Arab Institute for Women at the Lebanese American University, where she served as Executive Director for seven years.

  How big a problem is violence against women(VAW)at the global level? 

  VAW is a muchbigger global problem than we tend to imagine:statistics showone in everythree women and girls will experience violence in their lifetime. The fact so many women and girls are denied the right tolivefreely without facing restrictions and danger makes this a global crisis that needs urgent attention. I personally do not know a woman who has not been affected by some form of this insidious violence. Women have the right to feel free and safe in their own bodies, at home, in the streets and in any public spaces, but unfortunately that is not–and has never been – theirreality.

  VAWis a human rights violation thatis embedded in our culture– andwomenare often silenced when they try to speakup.Women-led organisationsand women’s rights groups and movementsmust be supported because they are the voice of these women and girls who are silenced. They are the voice ofallwomen and girls.

  Having worked to endVAW around the worldfor 25 years, I knowthis is a very hard problem to crack. VAW stems from a global context of gender inequality where women and girls are viewed as less than men, as second-class citizens. There is lack of awarenessin our societies and lack of political willamong our leaders.Existing laws don’t enable women to access justice, security, services, orsupport.Nothing works the way itshouldto put an end to this violence.

  Women and girls remain unequal across every aspect of their lives – politics, economy, health, education and the law. Women and girls are the majority of the world’s poor.They are the majority of those who are illiterate. But they are a minority, an exception, and treated like an anomaly in every aspect of leadership and decision-making. Wage gaps are wide, and women are too often relegatedto the informal sector. And they continue to bear the burden of unpaid care. In too many countries, womenface discriminatory laws that refuse to recognisethem as equals with men.

  How much progress has been achievedso far?

  Women and girlsaround the worldstill do not have the opportunity to participate fully inevery aspect ofsocial, economic and political life, despite their right to do so.Wehave made progress, butnot enough.

  Although advances have been made in trying to reduceVAW, cases continue, and are often perpetrated with impunity.

  In many countries, women are being stripped of theirsexual and reproductive rights, compromising their health and denying theirright to decide about their own bodies and lives. In addition,the problem of girl-child marriagecontinues, and increased as a result of COVID-19, with12 million girlsunder 18 being married offevery year.Forthis and other forms ofVAW, rhetoric doesn’t match reality. There is more talk than action.

  Women-led organisationsmustbe involved in policydecisions– and be given full leadership.There is a lot of talk about localisation,but this seems to just be a buzzwordas most women’s rights and feminist organisations aremarginalised andunderfunded.This only sets them up for failure because it limits the scope of their work, keeping the support they offer out of reach for the majority of women and girls. We need to fund these organisations fully, andnot with thetypicalshort-term quick-fix project funding but with long-term, unrestricted, open-ended funding thatcan allow them to function and flourish. Local groupsshoulddictate the agenda, not the donors who are holding the strings.

  What work do you do to contribute topositive change? 

  I am committed to building a better world for women. I am a global women’s rights activist, author and speaker with decades of experience worldwide. 

  I worked for over 20 years as a humanitarian aid worker in contexts such as Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, Haiti and Papua New Guinea.I now work independently, advising organisations and companies to enhance their engagement with women’s rights and gender equality. I also serve as the Senior Advisor for Global Women’s Rights at theArab Institute for Women at the Lebanese American University, where I was Executive Director until 2022.I am also the founder ofYalla, Feminists!, an online space and open platform dedicated to amplifying women’s voices worldwide.

  I was honoured to be able to share my passion and experience in ending VAW on global stages including aTEDx talk, a Women DeliverPowerTalk and akeynote address for Swedish International Development Agency annual meeting, among others.

  I’ve written two books:Gender and International Aid in Afghanistan andFreedom on the Frontlines. My next book outlines 50 years of Arab feminism and will be published in early 2023. I will keep using my voice in whatever ways I can to fight for women’s rights and remedy inequalities. That’s why I speak andpublish everywhere I can and I serve on the board of numerous global women’s rights organisations.

  What good practicesshould be implemented to prevent VAW?

  We need to start believing survivors so that perpetrators can be brought to justice.When women see the law is on their side, more willbe encouragedto speakup. Wealsoneed to make sure that survivorshave access to the full range of services and support, and security systems handle their cases with care.

  There is also a need to reform education so that more people are taught aboutVAW, consent, human rights and women’s rights – from a very young age.Education canbring us a step closer to defeating thisscourge. We need men to step up to support women and speak up against perpetrators.And yes, we need data, but not at the expense of action. Anyway, data will always underestimate the reality. And what we know is that no country is immune. This affects women and girls everywhere, in every culture and context and community.

  Get in touch with Lina AbiRafeh through herwebsite or herMedium blog, and follow@LinaAbiRafeh on Twitter.

• YEMEN: ‘We are caught in limbo, neither at war nor at peace, with state institutions nearly collapsed’

  CIVICUS speaks about Yemen’s ongoing conflict and humanitarian crisis withRadhya Almutawakel, co-founder and chairperson of Mwatana for Human Rights (Mwatana).

  Founded in 2007, Mwatana is a Yemeni civil society organisation (CSO) that advocates for humanrights, documentsviolations, creates awareness and provides legal support to victims.

  What’s the current situation in Yemen, and what are the prospects of the conflict being resolved in the near future?

  First, it’s crucial to note that the conflict in Yemen goes beyond a mere civil war, as it spans three distinct dimensions: local, regional and international. It started in 2014 when the Ansar Allah (Houthi) armed group seized control of Sana’a, the capital, and escalated with the intervention of a Saudi-led coalition in 2015. The ongoing conflict has been marked by relentless intensity and violations of international humanitarian law such as aggressive actions targeting civilians and critical infrastructure, resulting in what is now recognised as the world’s most severe humanitarian crisis.

  Since the ceasefire agreement in April 2022, direct military operations have ceased, providing temporary relief for civilians. While movement between specific Yemeni governorates and cities has improved, the country is caught in a state of limbo, neither at war nor at peace, grappling with the near-total collapse of state institutions. A significant proportion of public sector workers hasn’t been paid their salaries since 2016. Various armed groups control extensive territories, exacerbating the severe economic crisis and food insecurity. These are the primary challenges in Yemen’s humanitarian crisis.

  Despite the ceasefire, numerous human rights violations continue to be perpetrated by various parties to the conflict. Since late 2022, Oman has mediated the ongoing negotiations between the Houthi group and Saudi Arabia. Throughout 2023, reciprocal visits between both parties have taken place in Sana’a and the Saudi capital Riyadh with recent reports suggesting progress in negotiations that may lead to the resolution of this decade-long conflict.

  How has the war impacted on civilians?

  Throughout the years-long war, civilians in Yemen have faced two types of profound impacts. First, as direct victims. Thousands of civilians have been killed and many more have been injured. Civilian infrastructure has been destroyed, including schools, hospitals, bridges, historical and archaeological sites, farms, water and food sources and civil service structures.

  People have also been indirect victims: as the economy collapsed, hundreds of thousands lost their sources of income. Parties to the war enforced widespread starvation, landmines were planted, thousands of children were recruited to fight and public freedoms gained over decades of pre-war struggle, including women’s rights, have regressed. Minorities have faced persecution, and the conflict has had extensive economic, social and political ramifications.

  What role has Yemeni civil society, including Mwatana, played since the beginning of the conflict?

  Yemeni CSOs have been crucial partners of international institutions in implementing humanitarian response plans across different regions during years of conflict. Their programmes and interventions have addressed the needs of many vulnerable groups, bridging gaps deepened by the war.

  Both local and international civil society have successfully reshaped the global narrative of the war, shifting the focus from the perspectives of conflict parties to amplifying the voices of victims and shedding light on the humanitarian and human rights tragedy. They’ve actively advocated for the establishment of an international mechanism to investigate violations committed by all parties to the war. Human rights organisations have monitored and documented violations and advocated for criminal accountability.

  Mwatana for Human Rights monitors and documents human rights violations in Yemen through extensive field investigative research aimed at gathering precise information, evidence and testimonies to establish the facts and the identities of victims and perpetrators. We also provide legal support to victims of arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances and torture.

  We are currently documenting the plight of refugees and internally displaced people and the violations they’ve endured from various conflict parties. The challenges faced by hundreds of thousands of refugees in temporary shelters underline the critical need for peace efforts to prioritise the safe return of forcibly displaced people to their homes and communities.

  Mwatana’s mission extends to raising awareness and fostering a culture supportive of human rights through positive engagement with the public on social media platforms. We are actively involved in constructive dialogue with influential stakeholders to address the human rights challenges in Yemen through local and international advocacy mechanisms.

  How is Mwatana working to hold perpetrators accountable?

  We have a specialised unit dedicated to seeking justice, reparations and accountability for victims of rights violations. The judicial system has structural, technical and integrity challenges, including corruption and inability to ensure fair trials. As a result, civilian victims have endured widespread impunity.

  Even though Yemen isn’t a party to the Rome Statute and therefore falls outside the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Mwatana has been gathering evidence to ensure justice for all victims and accountability for all violators.

  First, we conduct comprehensive research and organise workshops and meetings with legal experts, academic institutions and experienced entities to explore available avenues for holding perpetrators accountable, including through international and United Nations (UN) mechanisms and the limited investigative procedures initiated by the conflict parties.

  Second, we collaborate with the international community to enhance accountability within international legal frameworks. Along with the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) and other partners, Mwatana submitted a file to the ICC. Further, in collaboration with the ECCHR and the Italian Network for Peace and Disarmament, we filed a complaint with the Italian Prosecutor and the European Court of Human Rights. Additionally, in coordination with Amnesty International, the ECCHR and Sherpa, we submitted a file to the French prosecutor. We also filed a legal intervention in the administrative case brought by the Campaign Against Arms Trade before the British judiciary. There are ongoing efforts to build cases in other countries.

  Third, we’ve actively engaged with UN mechanisms through the submission of shadow reports on Yemen and Saudi Arabia to the UN Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review process and UN treaty bodies, namely the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Committee Against Torture. We also provide written and oral briefings to various UN Special Rapporteurs and special procedures mandate holders.

  Finally, we undertake a range of actions to directly pressure violating parties and relevant bodies. We conduct workshops and discussions on accountability, reparations and truth-telling, drawing upon experiences from other countries. We have released a report on reparation mechanisms, and we plan to issue another in 2024 on viable criminal accountability options. These aim to establish informed foundations for future transitional justice in Yemen.

  What should the international community do to address the crisis and support Yemeni civil society?

  The international community’s response to the Yemen crisis has been weak and restricted due to conflicting interests with the involved parties, ranging from economic concerns and political alliances to arms trade deals. As a result, the conflict and numerous rights violations persist without any robust international action being taken. To address this, the international community must intensify efforts for a human-rights-secure settlement, enhancing the role of civil society and upholding the rule of law, justice and mechanisms for a transition to democracy.

  This requires the allocation of larger resources for civil society programmes and expansion of CSOs’ activities to extend their sphere of influence. Increased financial support is also needed to build capacity and ensure the continuity of CSO operations. It’s crucial that substantial resources are invested to support the work of local civil society in the upcoming period so that we are able to contribute to peace efforts effectively.

  Beyond financial aid, it’s important to endorse the work of Yemeni CSOs on the ground. The international community should exert pressure on all conflict parties to remove any impediments that hinder the efforts of CSOs, such as annual work permit barriers. Standing by civil society while it’s facing retaliation, defamation and smear campaigns for its work and stances is an essential part of expressing international solidarity.

  ---

  Civic space in Yemen is rated ‘closed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Mwatana through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@MwatanaEn and@RAlmutawakel on Twitter.

• ZAMBIA: ‘The abolition of the death penalty is a victory for civil society calling for respect of the right to life’

  CIVICUS speaks about Zambia’s recent abolition of the death penalty and the role played by civil society with Macdonald Chipenzi, outgoing Executive Director of the Governance, Elections, Advocacy, Research Services (GEARS) Initiative Zambia, a civil society organisation (CSO) that promotes democracy and electoral integrity.

  What led to the recent decision to abolish the death penalty in Zambia?

  Though the issue of the death penalty has been controversial and divisive in Zambia for some years now, and some people wanted to keep it on the statute books, there were various reasons behind the government’s decision to abolish it.

  First, since Zambia was declared a ‘Christian Nation’ in 1992, only one execution of a death warrant was done, in 1997 by then-president Fredrick Titus Jacob Chiluba. Since then, no president has been willing to sign a death warrant for any convict condemned to death. Another president, Levy Patrick Mwanawasa, even vowed never to sign any such warrant because he did not want human blood on his hands. The abolition of the death penalty was necessary both for consistency with the declaration of Zambia as a ‘Christian Nation’ whose belief in the Bible is unequivocal and to keep up with regional and global trends.

  Second, Zambia committed to abolishing the death penalty in the course of its successive Universal Periodic Review (UPR) examinations at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), the latest of which took place in 2017. Several donor missions repeatedly reminded the state of Zambia that it must do away with death penalty and several meetings were attended in Geneva by successive Ministers of Justice on the same matter. Arguably, the desire for Zambia to have a tangible presentation on its commitments to the UNHRC to offer at the next UPR session, slated for later this year, explains the speed at which the abolition process has proceeded.

  Third, there was consistent advocacy from a majority of civil society towards the abolition of the death penalty to comply with the principle of respect for the right to life enshrined in our constitution. The constitution has not been amended because this would require a referendum, but the elimination of the death penalty from the Penal Code means no court will be able to issue a death sentence and the highest sentence for those convicted of capital offices will be life imprisonment.

  The development is therefore a victory for the CSOs that have been consistent in calling for the abolition of the death penalty and for respect of the right to life in Zambia. The death penalty was in contradiction to both the provision on the right to life in the constitution and the ethos of Zambia as a Christian Nation. However, there remains the gigantic job of removing the death penalty from the constitution – which is important to do, because if one day the country is led by a bloodthirsty leader they could still apply it if they find a constitutional provision allowing it.

  How has civil society, and GEARS Initiative in particular, advocated for the abolition of the death penalty?

  We found the basis to anchor our advocacy work for the abolition of the death penalty in the decades-long practice by Zambian presidents of refusing to sign death warrants against convicts sentenced to death. This made the death sentence clause of the constitution redundant and strengthened the position of human rights and pro-life CSOs.

  Advocacy took the form of submissions to Constitutional Review Commissions and the African Union’s African Peer Review Mechanism as well as position papers presented at local and international meetings such as the UPR sessions where the Zambian government was present. CSOs also made presentations and submissions at international forums and had one-on-one meetings with foreign missions of countries that had abolished the death penalty and with those of states concerned with human rights, such as the European Union, the UK and the USA.

  UPR sessions and pre-sessions and parallel events, including a recent one that GEARS Initiative was able to attend with support from CIVICUS, were used as a platform to advocate for the repeal of the death penalty. The creation of a critical mass of human rights CSOs synergised partnerships for joint and consistent advocacy activities that helped build momentum and compelled the government to act. It was also very crucial to build working synergies with local and international media to disseminate advocacy initiatives.

  What are the next steps in your work?

  There are a number of remaining repressive or archaic laws that should be repealed, reviewed or amended. These include the Public Order Act (1955), the NGO Act (2009), the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act (2021) and the Contempt of Court Law, which is part of the Penal Code, among others. Except for the latter, the rest are already under review, with draft bills ready to be presented before the National Assembly. The Public Order Act, for instance, is being replaced with a Public Gatherings Bill.

  Our next steps are to continue advocating for a speedy legal review process of these repressive laws by undertaking public engagement and media activities, auditing obnoxious sections of these laws and submitting our reports to state authorities and other stakeholders, including the media, CSOs, donor communities and parliamentarians. This may entail hiring legal consultants to do desk reviews, identify the sections that need to be replaced and recommend alternatives that are justifiable from the perspective of a democratic society. This, will of course, require the investment of more technical and financial resources.

  What kind of support do you need to continue doing this work?

  Last year, GEARS Initiative received short-term financial and technical support from CIVICUS and two US-based organisations – the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law and the National Democratic Institute – to conduct legal analyses of the NGO Act, the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act and the Public Order Act and report back on what and why they needed to be repealed or replaced. The negative impact of the continued existence of these laws was analysed and shared, not only with media and civil society, but also with citizens, including in local and rural communities.

  But for 2023, GEARS Initiative has not yet secured any support for its advocacy work towards the repeal of repressive laws. All our projects had short-term funding that ended in 2022, and had visible positive impact: they kept the government on its toes and pushed it to close the year with draft bills that it promised to table before the National Assembly in its first session starting in February 2023. GEARS Initiative was included in the Technical Committee on repeal and replacement of the Public Order Act and was further requested to make submissions on the review of the NGO Act and the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act.

  GEARS Initiative will need financial and technical support to be able to sustain the advocacy activities it embarked on in 2022. In collaboration with like-minded CSOs, GEARS Initiative wants to continue reviewing the various repressive laws that restrict civic and democratic space in Zambia, conducting community, stakeholders’, media and government engagement around the findings of those reviews, and advocating for the replacement of obsolete or repressive legislation.

  Civic space inZambia is rated ‘obstructed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with GEARS Initiative through itsFacebook page.

• ZIMBABWE: ‘Election violence is a cover for ideological ambivalence and lack of substantive programmes’

  CIVICUS speaks about the general election in Zimbabwe and the role of civil society with Wellington Mbofana, former director ofthe Civic Education Network Trust (CIVNET), a civil society organisation (CSO) that recently shut down due to lack of funding, and a former board member of several Zimbabwean CSOs.

  What was at stake in this election?

  It’s difficult to pinpoint a single crucial issue that was at stake. Over a considerable period, Zimbabwean elections, much like those in other parts of Africa, have ceased to revolve around substantive issues and have instead become centred on political parties and personalities. This trend is evident in this election, in which major political parties failed to present their manifestos in a timely manner. The main opposition party, Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC), unveiled its programme merely two weeks prior to voting, while the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU PF) didn’t even bother.

  Given the crumbling state of the economy, reflected in record-breaking unemployment, pervasive economic informality, escalating poverty, the world’s second-highest inflation rate and a sense of hopelessness, economic strife remained the most prominent concern for voters. Ideally, the competition should have revolved around two or three contrasting strategies for addressing these economic woes. However, what we observed was a cloud of obfuscation. The ruling party advanced a narrative that conditions are improving and investors are flocking to the country, but progress would be even greater if it weren’t for sanctions imposed by Western states. The opposition pledged to outperform ZANU-PF across all fronts. But neither specified how they would fund their proposed initiatives.

  To deal with Zimbabwe’s predicament effectively the government would need to confront a range of issues, including land reform and productivity, water shortages, electricity generation, infrastructure development and urbanisation and, most importantly, guarantee the required funding.

  It should have been important to ensure the meaningfulness of this election because when elections fail, civil unrest and coups ensue, a truth that Africa has repeatedly witnessed.

  Was there any election-related violence?

  The prevalence of violence in all its manifestations – physical, structural and cultural – remains an unfortunate hallmark of Zimbabwean elections. Lives have been lost, injuries endured and property destroyed as a result.

  It is also important to note that because of its fractured politics, the country is in a perpetual election mode. Over the past five years, we have had multiple recalls from parliament and local authorities, leading to by-elections. Instances of intra-party violence have also occurred during parliamentary and primary elections. The culture upholding the idea that wielding the strongest fist is the key to ascending to power must change. Violence is a cover for ideological ambivalence and lack of substantive programmes. Who needs a manifesto when you can use force?

  What tactics did the government use to stifle dissent in the run-up to the election?

  The ruling party stands accused of engaging in lawfare, a tactic that uses laws to constrain the opposition and human rights defenders. These efforts are facilitated by an allegedly captured judiciary. A prominent CCC legislator, Job Sikhala, along with other political activists and human rights defenders, languish in remand prisons on spurious allegations after being denied bail.

  The government introduced controversial laws aimed at silencing dissent. The Private Voluntary Organisations Amendment Bill and the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Amendment Act, commonly called the Patriotic Bill, are clearly designed to deal with critics of the government.

  The Patriotic Bill came into force on 14 July 2023. With this bill, the government created a new crime of ‘wilfully injuring the sovereignty and national interest of Zimbabwe’.  The scope and definition of this offence is vague. There are valid concerns that law enforcement agencies will interpret the law broadly and use it to stifle and penalise the work of independent civil society.

  Citizens and permanent residents of Zimbabwe will be found guilty if they participate in meetings aimed at discussing or plotting armed intervention in Zimbabwe, subverting or overthrowing its government and implementing or extending sanctions or trade boycotts against Zimbabwe. A meeting encompasses any form of communication involving two or more people, regardless of whether it takes place offline or online.

  Participating in discussions about armed intervention can result in life imprisonment or the death penalty if the meeting involves planning such an intervention. Discussing subversion or overthrow of the government is punishable by up to 20 years in prison. Taking part in meetings discussing sanctions or trade boycotts can lead to a fine of up to US$12,000 or up to 10 years in prison, or both. Aggravated offences may lead to consequences such as the termination of citizenship for those who are not citizens by birth or descent, cancellation of residence permits for non-citizens and disqualification from voting or holding public office for five to 15 years.

  In the hands of overzealous and partisan law enforcement agents, this punitive law is very dangerous. It seems to target not only the opposition and civil society but also factions within the fractured ruling party and the military. It likely seeks to prevent a recurrence of a military-assisted transition, which brought the current government to power in 2017. That coup was willingly accepted by powerful global players, including the African Union and the Southern African Development Community (SADC), which inadvertently endorsed the idea of military change of power.

  How did Zimbabwean civil society engage with the electoral process?

  Civil society was actively involved in electoral activities throughout the electoral cycle. CSOs play a pivotal role in providing voter education, observing elections, advocating for electoral reforms, safeguarding human rights and offering legal, medical and psycho-social assistance to victims of human rights violations.

  Both local and international observers were generally allowed and accredited. However, there were isolated cases, such as the denial of accreditation to Musa Kika, allegedly due to security risks, while some local citizens encountered intimidation, harassment and threats from unidentified people after engaging with international observers.

  But unfortunately, the last couple of years have been very difficult for Zimbabwean. Several CSOs have shut down. CIVNET, a major organisation providing civic education, closed its doors this year due to lack of funding.

  The Zimbabwean economy is too fragile to support a strong civil society, which heavily relies on international donors and solidarity. Further international support should be rendered to all groups promoting development, good governance, human rights, justice and the rule of law. The international community should also amplify local voices and exert pressure on the Zimbabwean government to act in accordance with international human rights and democratic standards.

  What did CIVNET work on?

  CIVNET operated through three main programmes: the Citizen Participation Programme, including two projects on constitutionalism and voter education, the Leadership Development Programme and the Peace Building Programme.

  The Citizen Participation Programme encouraged citizen engagement in governance and development, fostering collaboration between communities and local authorities through participatory workshops and development projects. The Constitution and Constitutionalism Project aimed to raise awareness about the significance of the new constitution and share information on how to use it to exercise human rights and honour obligations as citizens.

  The Leadership Development Programme enhanced leadership skills of people engaged in community projects. Our graduates now lead various Zimbabwean CSOs and work in local authorities and parliament. CIVNET contributed to the formation and development of CSOs such as the Zimbabwe Election Support Network, the Zimbabwe Peace Project and the Media Monitoring Project of Zimbabwe. It was also a key member of the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGOs Forum.

  The Peace Building Programme helped people and communities divided by conflict to reach out to each other and mend broken relations. This was done through creatively designed workshops that provided security and safety to both victims and perpetrators of violent conflicts. Mediators were also trained to address local disputes, resulting in transformed relationships and improved dialogue within previously divided communities.

  To what extent could the election be called free and fair?

  The concept of free and fair elections involves political freedoms and fair processes prior to elections, culminating in the casting of votes by well-informed eligible voters able to vote freely for candidates and parties of their choice. A transparent tally of all valid votes, accurate result announcements and universal acceptance of the election outcomes by all parties are integral components of this concept.

  Past elections in Zimbabwe have been contested at courts and other institutions. For Zimbabwe to uphold its position within the international community, this election would have to gain universal recognition as credible, legitimate and conducted in a free and fair manner. It would be key to ensure the acceptance of its outcome and secure peace and stability to attract investors.

  The 2023 election was disputed in the legal arena even before a single ballot was cast. This may be a harbinger of future developments. On 12 July, the Electoral Court disqualified a presidential candidate, Savior Kasukuwere, whose participation had been previously permitted by the Nomination Court. Then the High Court disqualified 12 CCC parliamentary candidates, ostensibly for late filings, although the Nomination Court had accepted their submissions. Both decisions favoured the ruling party. However, following an appeal, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s verdict on the 12 CCC candidates, leading to their reinstatement on the ballot. On 19 July the electoral court ruled in favour of a leader of the opposition United Zimbabwe Alliance party, Elizabeth Valerio, whose candidacy had been initially rejected by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC), also for alleged untimely filing.

  Declaring the election to be free and fair would be unreasonable given the political environment characterised by violence, intimidation and voter suppression, non-transparent processes with the electoral roll and ballot paper printing, pre-voting by security personnel, biased media coverage, opposition rallies barred by the police, vote buying through handouts, influence from traditional and religious leaders on voters, misuse of government resources for party campaigns and indications that some parties will reject any outcome other than their own victory, implying that the ruling party wouldn’t have handed over power if it had lost. Indeed, SADC decided to abandon the term ‘free and fair’ regarding Zimbabwean elections, instead referring to them as ‘legitimate’.

  What electoral reforms are needed?

  Adherence to rule of law and impartial management of elections is essential. The ZEC should enforce the Electoral Code of Conduct, safeguarding the right for all to express their political views and campaign freely. It must also ensure fairness by curbing the misuse of state resources, preventing intimidation, harassment and destruction of campaign materials and improving voter education.

  The police should fulfil their constitutional duties impartially, without bias, fear, or favour. Political parties should adhere to the Code of Conduct for Political Parties and Candidates. This entails refraining from violence, misuse of public resources for partisan ends, coercion and intimidation of the electorate and inciting violence through hate speech and derogatory language.

  Were there any issues with people being prevented from voting, and what do you expect to happen next?

  A high turnout was to be expected given the high stakes. The economy has done its own campaign, motivating people to participate. The ruling party also mobilised people, especially in rural areas, by any means necessary.

  However, many voters might not have been able to locate their names on the register. The polling station-based system is such that people living in a specific neighbourhood can only vote at a certain polling station. In the 2018 election, a lot of people found their names had been removed from their usual stations without a change having been requested, while others who requested changes after moving to other districts saw those changes unimplemented. Following the election, many constituencies and councils had elected representatives recalled by political parties in power. Since there are no guarantees that this won’t happen again, some people may have been discouraged from voting.

  Based on experience, disputes around results and their resolution by the courts are to be expected. Given that the judiciary is perceived to be captured and judges were given significant ‘housing loans’ before the election, judgements against the opposition are also rightly likely to be perceived as unfair.

  ---

  Civic space in Zimbabwe is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

• ZIMBABWE: ‘This so-called election was a circus and a waste of resources’

  CIVICUS speaks about Zimbabwe’sAugust general election and its aftermath with Obert Masaraure, national president of Amalgamated Rural Teachers Union of Zimbabwe and spokesperson of the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, which brings together 84 Zimbabwean civil society organisations (CSOs).

  What was at stake in this election?

  This was an important election. We were expecting both a democratic and an economic breakthrough after years of dictatorship and economic stagnation. Millions of young people are dropping out of school, thousands are dying after failing to secure healthcare and millions are unemployed. We expected change to happen.

  But we were disappointed. Civil society tried to engage with the electoral process and play a monitoring role but was criminalised. Those who were doing voter tabulation were arrested. After the Election Management Board barred civil society groups we had to monitor the electoral process clandestinely. In the run-up to the election we also did a lot of voter education. We managed to generate excitement among voters, but on voting day they were frustrated.

  What’s your assessment of the credibility of the results?

  According to the results announced by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) on 26 August, President Emmerson Mnangagwa of the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) received 52.6 per cent of the vote, while the leading opposition candidate, Nelson Chamisa of Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC), received 44 per cent. But these results are not credible because the polls were held on a flawed electoral field and the ZEC failed to discharge its duty to run a reasonably free and fair election, as evidenced by multiple acts and omissions.

  First, the ZEC didn’t supply ballot papers or the voter roll in time to many polling stations in the provinces of Bulawayo, Harare and Manicaland, which are traditional opposition strongholds. This was a clear attempt to suppress voters and help the incumbent stay in power.

  The Electoral Act mandates ZEC to display the voter roll at all polling stations 48 hours before the polls open, but most polling stations only received it on election day. This had consequences for the opposition, because in urban areas, where the opposition is stronger, at least 180,000 voters couldn’t find their names at the designated polling stations on election day. Their names had been moved after a shambolic delimitation process but as voter rolls had been unavailable until the last minute, these voters were unable to locate their new polling stations.

  According to a ZEC statement, only 23 per cent of polling stations opened on time in Harare, with 75 per cent doing so in Bulawayo and 85 per cent in Manicaland. Some polling stations in Harare were still waiting for ballot papers as late as 6pm, one hour before closing. In contrast, in the majority of the ruling party’s strongholds, typically in harder-to-reach areas, election materials were received early and all polling places were open at the scheduled time.

  In urban areas there were waiting times of up to 12 hours. Many people were unable to vote within that period and voting had to be extended to 48 hours. In rural areas, where the ruling party is strongest, the maximum waiting period was 30 minutes. Additionally, an estimated 42,000 civil servants who were working as polling officials could not vote after the ZEC refused to facilitate their voting.

  The overall impact of this was to disenfranchise millions of voters and suppress opposition voters while encouraging those of the ruling party.

  There were also lots of fraudulent and deceptive practices. There were cases where local candidates were taken off the ballot, as happened to CCC’s Shepherd Sithole in ward 1 of Bulawayo. A shocking incident was also recorded in which party symbols for ZANU-PF and the CCC were switched, confusing voters and making it impossible to record their actual choice.

  There were reports from at least 50 polling stations in rural areas that the supposedly indelible ink used could easily be washed away. This was suspected to be a deliberate attempt to allow rural voters to vote multiple times to inflate the results for ZANU-PF. The postal ballot mechanism also appeared to be abused for ballot stuffing, as at least 35 polling stations reported receiving more postal ballots than they had voters registered.

  There were numerous instances of intimidation at polling stations. A ZANU-PF affiliate, Forever Associates Zimbabwe (FAZ), set up ‘exit survey tables’ in at least 1,340 polling stations. Individual voters were asked to declare who they had voted for and provide their personal details. FAZ also recorded the serial numbers of voters’ ballot papers and told voters they would be able to tell who they voted for. Needless to say, this intimidated voters who have experienced a long history of serious political violence.

  This was a sham, not an election. It was a circus and a waste of resources that subverted the will of the people and illegally kept the incumbent in power.

  What needs to happen next to bring about democracy in Zimbabwe?

  The Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition has demanded the immediate announcement of a date for a fresh free, fair and credible election. We must put an end to the long history of disputed elections in Zimbabwe and usher in a legitimate government that can lift Zimbabwe up from the category of a pariah state, rebuild its economy and improve the lives of its people.

  Zimbabwe needs an inclusive national dialogue to broker a political settlement leading to credible elections supervised by the Southern African Development Community and the African Union. Zimbabweans should play their role in exerting pressure on the government to force it to agree to dialogue.

  Zimbabwean pro-democracy organisations must be strengthened through international support so that they can play their proper role in a transition to democracy. The international community is also invited to exert pressure so that the government agrees to engage in an inclusive national dialogue. And while it does not, the international community must isolate the country from the family of nations. A dictatorship does not deserve a seat on any international platform.

  Civic space in Zimbabwe is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Obert Masaraure through itsFacebook page and follow@omasaraure on Twitter