What kinds of local institutions and external global levers and can most effectively and sustainably counter the closing of civil society spaces?

在世界各地，从匈牙利到玻利维亚，从土耳其到泰国，经济增长带来的民主和公民红利似乎比预期的要脆弱得多。除了经过充分研究的“中等收入陷阱”之外，许多国家似乎还陷入了“脆弱的民主陷阱”，在这个陷阱中，民主和公民的抱负被忽视了，部分原因是为了希望保持经济的发展。在西方民粹主义和政治极端主义抬头的同时，许多发展中国家和新兴经济体的关键机构、个人和社会运动也受到压制。事实证明，较富裕的所谓自由国家和全球机构减缓这些趋势的努力是完全不够的。虽然民主受到威胁的原因很复杂，但人们日益认识到，民主要蓬勃发展，就必须有一个强大的、充分参与的公民社会。公民社会的概念是分散和主观的（爱德华兹，2014年），但普遍的共识是，除了支持民主繁荣的作用外，健康的公民社会还扩大了人类联系的领域，以满足基本需求：福祉，社会联系，公民参与，言论自由和归属感。与此同时，公民社会的理论和实践正在受到一种新的“混乱的多元主义”的影响和影响——获取国家信息的新手段，能够使人们和组织在地方和全球范围内进行沟通和动员的数字机会，以及公司和供应链的全球化。尽管对关闭公民社会空间的威胁不断以各种方式加以反击，但没有足够的证据表明哪些是有效的，哪些是长期有效的。对于哪些方法——无论是来自地方机构和社会运动的“自下而上”，还是来自其他国家或全球机构的干预的“自上而下”——在防止公民社会空间关闭方面最有效和可持续，人们的理解过于有限。除了在威胁出现时（例如言论自由）对应对威胁至关重要的快速反应之外，我们还需要一些更广泛的理论基础，以了解国家和全球行为体（国家和非国家）如何制定更积极、更全面的战略，创造一个总体有利的环境，使繁荣的公民社会更有可能出现，而关闭空间的企图也更罕见。为了回答我的研究问题，我认为我需要：-解释的广度，以发展对这个问题的各种原因的深刻理解和解释，与发展背景下的权力理论相联系-实践的深度，将这种理解应用于一些具体例子的详细探索，这些例子是成功或失败地抵制了公民社会关闭的威胁。不同背景下的“进入现实”——将从这些探索中获得的新知识综合为有可能影响行动的框架和建议的规范性空间。我首先提出四个需要深入探讨的信念：-虽然单一问题的组织和运动将继续成为关键的行动者，但也可能需要新的包容性机构形式-在目标，重点领域和实现变革的方法组合方面更加灵活。-艺术和文化可能在这些机构中发挥特殊作用，作为一种机制，以更不可预测和更少压抑的方式保持公民社会的开放。防止公民社会空间关闭的方法需要更多地关注对人类行为和动机的新理解和见解。如果各国认真支持其他国家的公民社会，它们需要重新审视权力的概念和实践，特别是与“软实力”概念相关的概念。

Across the world, from Hungary to Bolivia, Turkey to Thailand, expected democratic and civic dividends from economic growth appears far more fragile than anticipated. Alongside the well-researched, 'middle-income trap', many countries appear to be slipping into a 'fragile democracy trap', in which democratic and civic ambitions are neglected, partly in the expedient hope of keeping the economy moving. The resurgence of populism and political extremism in the West is matched by the suppression of key institutions, individuals and social movements in many developing countries and emerging economies. Wealthier so-called Liberal nations and global institutions' attempts to decelerate these trends are proving wholly inadequate. Whilst the reasons for threats to democracy are complex, there is increasing recognition that for democracy to flourish, a strong, fully engaged civil society is imperative. Notions of civil society are diffuse and subjective (Edwards, 2014), but there is a general consensus that, in addition to its role in supporting democracies to thrive, a healthy civil society expands the realm of human connection to meet essential needs: well-being, social connections, civic participation, freedom of expression, and belonging. At the same time, the theories and practices of civil society are both being influenced by and influencing a new 'chaotic pluralism' - new means to access state information, digital opportunities that can empower people and organisations to communicate and mobilise locally and globally, and the globalisation of corporations and supply chains.Although threats to the closing of civil society spaces are continually countered in a variety of ways, there is insufficient evidence about what works, and what works for the longer term. There is too limited understanding about what approaches - whether 'bottom up' from local institutions and social movements, or 'top down' from the interventions of other countries or global institutions - are most effective and sustainable in preventing the closing of civil society spaces. In addition to the rapid reaction that is so vital to countering threats when they arise - for instance, to freedom of expression, we need some broader theoretical underpinning to understand how national and global actors (state and non-state) can develop more proactive, holistic strategies, creating an overall enabling environment where a flourishing civil society is far more likely and attempts to close spaces far more rare.To answer my research quest I believe that I would need:- Explanatory breadth to develop a strong understanding and explanation of the diverse causes of this problem, linked to a theories of power in a development context- Practical depth to apply this understanding to some detailed explorations of particular examples of where threats to the closing of civil society have been successfully or unsuccessfully countered, 'going inside the reality' of different contexts- Normative space to synthesise the new knowledge gained from these explorations into frameworks and recommendations that have the potential to influence action.I start with four beliefs which need deep interrogation:- That whilst single-issue organisations and campaigns, will continue to be crucial actors, new inclusive institutional forms may also be needed - more flexible in terms of goals, areas of focus and mix of methods to achieve change. - That there may be a particular role for the arts and culture within these institutions as mechanisms to keep civil society open in less predictable and less suppressible ways. - That approaches to preventing the closing of civil society spaces need to pay far more attention to new understandings and insights around human behaviour and motivationsThat, if states are serious about supporting civil society in other countries, they will need to revisit concepts and practices of power, especially relating to the notion of 'soft power'.