Governing State of Emergency and Social Activism in (non)Democratic Regimes

Abstract

Governing in a state of emergency is challenging and raises important questions and issues related to how states and societies respond to crises and the role and influence of citizens in shaping those responses. In democracies, emergency management is usually carried out by institutions that protect civil rights and freedoms and ensure transparency and accountability. This means that decisions are made on the basis of previously adopted laws and rules, and citizens are involved in the decision-making process. In such an environment, civil society plays a key role in ensuring that public authorities adhere to these principles of accountability and transparency. In countries suffering from a democratic deficit, emergency management is more often centralised, with decisions made quickly and without citizen participation. In such an environment, social activism can be met with repression and suppression by the authorities, as these governments often fear that activists would threaten their power. Even in non-democratic systems, there are cases where citizens have successfully used social activism to challenge autocratic conditions. The papers in this panel discuss a range of measures taken by governments to control social activism, centralise government power and defend rights violations. The Peruvian case is an example of how a state of emergency can be declared with the aim of controlling social resistance - in this case against mining projects; this practise, which has been informally institutionalised, paradoxically shows how exceptions become the rule, with consequences for the functioning of democracy and the rule of law. The next paper discusses the context of the Covid 19 pandemic through the lens of the centralisation of power in Central European countries. The presneted study examines the causes of the attempt to permanently centralize the executive power of governments, using the cases of Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and incorporating the regional context and the positive spillover effect. Finally, the last paper looks at the rhetorical strategies used by governments to counter international allegations of human rights violations and shows how governments often construct international pressure as threats to national sovereignty, security, and values. In line with these conclusions, the paper discusses the (in)effectiveness of such pressure generated by the international community.

Title	Details
The abuse of emergency provisions: How and under which conditions declared states of emergency foster democratic decline	View Paper Details
Authoritarian enclaves, extractivism and social contestation in the Peruvian Andes	View Paper Details
Band of Brothers: Projection of Power Centralization in Times of Crisis in Central European countries	View Paper Details
Escaping Human Rights Pressure: How Governments Defend Human Rights Violations	View Paper Details