In this article we challenge the conventional wisdom that COVID-19 and related legal restrictions invariably reinforce a global trend of shrinking civic space. We argue that the legal guarantee (or restriction) of civil society rights is not the sole factor configuring civic space. Instead, we reconceptualize civic space by broadening its determinants to also include needs-induced space and civil society activism. Investigating five countries with flawed democracic or competitive autocracic regimes in Southeast Asia, we propose a three-pronged mechanism of how these determinants interact in the context of COVID-19. First, legal restrictions on civil society rights intertwine with the space created by health and economic needs to create new opportunities for civil society activism. Second, these new opportunity structures lead to the cross-fertilization between service delivery and advocacy activism by civil society. Third, this new trajectory of civil society activism works to sustain civic space.

Existing research on civil society organizations (CSOs) facing restricted civic space largely focuses on the crackdown on freedoms and CSOs’ strategies to handle these restrictions, often emphasizing impact on their more confrontational public roles. However, many CSOs shape their roles through collaborative relations with government. Drawing on interviews with state agencies and CSOs, this article analyes state–CSO collaboration in the restricted civic space context of disaster risk reduction in India. Findings are that the shaping of CSOs’ roles through collaboration under conditions of restricted civic space is only partly defined by the across-the-board restrictive policies that have been the focus of much existing research on restricted civic space and its implications for CSOs. Interplay at the level of individual state agencies and CSOs, based on mutual perceptions, diverse organization-level considerations and actions, and evolving relations, shape who collaborates with whom and to what effect. This article thus stresses interplay and agency, moving away from simple understandings of co-optation, and calling for a more differentiated approach to the study of state–civil society collaboration under conditions of restricted civic space, with close attention to navigation.

The following study examined advocacy strategies of human rights CSOs in Colombia; how they defended and expanded civic space for vulnerable populations, managed risk and characterized their relationships with INGOs. Twenty-six organizational leaders were interviewed. Results indicate that when under pressure, CSOs mitigate their mission, focus on culturally expressive activities, and avoid regions or topics. Proactive strategies used to advance the mission ranged from influencing policy incrementally through inside channels; ‘cloaking’—dissimulating the confrontative nature of activities and framing them as apolitical; joining coalitions for protection, legitimacy, and influence; appealing to national and international courts, and the media; and appealing to transnational networks for support. Human rights INGOs enabled CSOs to be more assertive in their advocacy by extending a variety of resources, including funding, legitimacy, global visibility, and some degree of physical protection. The study contributes to our understanding of how human rights CSOs advance democracy in hybrid regimes.

Limited space to engage in advocacy is one manifestation of a restrictive civic environment. In environments where civil society organizations (CSOs) are keen to maintain a low profile, non-confrontational advocacy mechanisms are often preferred. Based on a case study on the adoption of an Egyptian law that criminalizes denial of inheritance to women, this paper investigates how CSOs engage in advocacy in restrictive settings. The aforementioned law was put forth by a coalition of CSOs in Egypt and led by an international NGO. Using an original analytical framework, I argue that the coalition’s ability to navigate the restrictive environment in Egypt can be explained by a confluence of factors, including that the issue did not conflict with beliefs of powerful decision-makers, that the CSOs were perceived as legitimate and had good network reach, and that the CSOs used insider tactics and non-controversial framing to mobilize support of influential government actors.

This article explores the use of laws to unduly silence critics of corporate human rights abuses. It considers the hypothesis that state and business elites align their interests, fuelling the employment of regulations to excessively impede naming and shaming activities. This article draws on socio-legal and critical legal studies to demonstrate how laws, while typically perceived as protective, can also serve to empower corporations and suppress dissent. It reviews examples of such collusion and calls for further case studies to better understand the interplay between business interests and regulatory practices.