Members of the National Police arrest a student during an opposition demonstration against the government of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, in Caracas on February 12, 2014. Flickr/Diariocritico de Venezuela. CC-BY-2.0.Illiberalism is rising and democratic norms are weakening around the world. This trend has focused the attention of scholars and policymakers on democratic backsliding or “closing space,” which a recent USAID report defines as “a change in a combination of competitive electoral procedures, civil and political liberties, and accountability” that “occurs through a series of discrete changes in the rules and informal procedures that shape those elections, rights, and accountability.” For policymakers, implementers and activists, closing space is a phenomenon that hinders development, democracy, and governance work and interrupts a once-expanding global norm of individual freedom.
In order to stem the tide of backsliding – or simply to maintain the operational status quo – donors, implementers and domestic actors in closing spaces must fully understand the multidimensional process of closing space. Ideally, these actors should be equipped with early-warning signs that portend growing repressive political trends. Yet, as the recent history of Venezuela shows, neither domestic opposition nor the international community are always able to push back on the retreat from democracy. This is due at least in part to an inadequate understanding of the indicators and process of backsliding, which delays countervailing action as the process unfolds.
Academic and policy communities have often focused their attention on the causes of backsliding at the expense of understanding the process. Of course, understanding the roots of closing space is valuable. But far less attention has been paid to the sequencing, effects, and motivations of closing that can occur in full and partial democracies.
