dw.com
Global Civil Society Under Siege: Freedoms Severely Curtailed
Brot für die Welt's" Atlas of Civil Society reveals that only 40 of 197 surveyed countries, representing 3.5% of the global population, fully guarantee freedom of expression, assembly, and press; the remaining 7 billion people face varying degrees of restrictions on civic engagement.
- How do authoritarian governments and restrictive laws contribute to the decline in civil liberties detailed in the report?
- The report highlights a dramatic decline in democratic freedoms globally, citing authoritarian legislation, erosion of separation of powers, and arbitrary state actions as key factors. The Atlas categorizes countries based on civic space, with only 40 nations classified as 'open' and many others facing severe restrictions or outright suppression of civil society.
- What are the long-term implications of the observed trends for democratic governance, sustainable development, and global stability?
- The study's findings underscore a critical need for increased international support for civil society organizations. The erosion of democratic norms, coupled with repressive measures in numerous countries, poses a severe threat to sustainable development, including climate action, education, and peace. Germany, once a model, now faces concerns over police brutality and restrictions on climate activism.
- What is the most significant finding of "Brot für die Welt's" Atlas of Civil Society regarding the global state of fundamental freedoms and civic engagement?
- Brot für die Welt's" Atlas of Civil Society reveals that only 3.5% of the global population (40 out of 197 countries) enjoys unrestricted freedom of expression, assembly, and press. This means about seven billion people live under restrictions on civic engagement, ranging from limitations to complete suppression.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The report's framing emphasizes the negative aspects of civil society restrictions globally. The headline and introduction immediately highlight the dramatic limitations, setting a tone of urgency and concern. While this is understandable given the subject matter, this framing might unintentionally downplay any progress or positive actions taken to protect civil liberties.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral, although words like "dramatic," "warn," and "attacked" carry a strong negative connotation. While these choices reflect the severity of the situation, using less emotionally charged words in some instances might improve objectivity. For example, instead of "dramatic Einschränkungen", "significant limitations" could be used.
Bias by Omission
The report focuses on restrictions to civil liberties and doesn't explore potential positive developments or counter-movements in detail, which could offer a more balanced perspective. While acknowledging limitations of scope, the lack of discussion on these aspects might limit the reader's understanding of the overall global situation.
False Dichotomy
The report presents a somewhat stark dichotomy between countries with fully open civil societies and those with severely restricted ones. The categorization into five levels is helpful, but it could benefit from a more nuanced exploration of the gradations within each category.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a global decline in civil liberties, including freedom of speech, assembly, and press. This directly impacts the ability of civil society to hold power accountable, undermining institutions and hindering progress towards just and peaceful societies. The report cites authoritarian legislation, erosion of separation of powers, and state arbitrariness as key factors. The decline in civil liberties also affects the ability to address other SDGs, as highlighted by the quote "No climate protection, no education, no peace without civil society.