Document

BREAKING DOWN DEMOCRACY: Goals, Strategies, and Methods of Modern Authoritarians

Ref IMAGES-005-HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019256.txt Release House Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025) 1 pages

Epstein Suite indexes the text; the original document lives at its official source. We don't host the original file — view it on the official release to read it in full.

View the original on the official release

People & organizations named in this document

Being named here is not an accusation of wrongdoing.

Document text

Text is machine OCR and may contain errors. Confirm against the original source above.

BREAKING DOWN DEMOCRACY: Goals, Strategies, and Methods of Modern Authoritarians Chapter 3 The Enemy Within: Civil Society at Bay Among the more surprising developments in 21st-century politics are the reversals experienced by civil society, once regarded as an irresistible force in the global struggle for democracy. According to Freedom in the World, the ability of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and other civil society institutions to function without state re- strictions has suffered a pronounced decline over the past decade. The setbacks have been concentrated in authoritarian states like Russia, China, Venezuela, and lran. But civil society has also met with growing prob- lems in democracies—India and Indonesia among them—and in settings where democracy’s prospects are unclear, as with Ecuador, Hungary, and Kenya. The growing offensive against civil society is in many respects a tribute to the prominent role that NGOs have come to play in the political life of most coun- tries. An active civil society is often seen as a formida- ble threat to a repressive or illiberal status quo. Civil society was the linchpin in the successful popular revolutions in Serbia, Ukraine, and Georgia. In fact, civil society organizations frequently pose a greater threat to autocracy than do traditional opposition par- ties, which have proven relatively easy for determined strongmen to sideline, neutralize, or co-opt. Civil soci- ety movements, by contrast, are generally composed of younger activists, committed to a cause, more resilient, more agile, and less prone to corruption. To be sure, even some authoritarian states can boast of an active and growing civil society sector consist- ing of humanitarian organizations, religious entities, conservation groups, associations focused on public health or development, and so forth. It is with the NGOs that pursue politically sensitive objectives—hu- man rights advocacy, democratic reform, or anticor- ruption measures—that oppressive leaders have serious differences. Especially in countries where elections have been rendered meaningless, civil soci- ety groups can become surrogates for a democratic opposition, and are therefore regarded with deep suspicion by the leadership. The specter of ‘color revolution’ The term “color revolution” emerged in 2003-05 to describe a phenomenon whereby an existing politi- cal leadership is overthrown by a popular movement “Countries in western Asia and northern Africa, Ukraine and Thai- land, which have experienced street protests and even armed conflicts, have been led astray to the wrong path of Western-style democracy, that is, ‘street politics.’.. The United States and some Western forces have been involved in the street politics in these countries, either on stage or behind the scenes.” —Xinhua, paraphrasing an editorial by MiBohua of the People’s Daily “In the modern world, extremism is being used as a geopolitical instru- ment and for remaking spheres of influence. We see what tragic conse- quences the wave of so-called color revolutions led to... We should do everything necessary so that noth- ing similar ever happens in Russia.” —Vladimir Putin using tactics of nonviolent civil disobedience. Successful nonviolent democratic revolutions are not new. Perhaps the first color revolution took place in 1974, when a dictatorship in Portugal was overthrown by military officers who drew on the support of civilian democracy advocates. Later peaceful revolutions overcame authoritarian regimes in the Philippines, South Korea, Chile, and Poland. In the 21st century, however, the definitive events behind the new label took place in Georgia (2003) and Ukraine (2004-5). Both countries were governed by politicians with close ties to Moscow who were either personally corrupt or tolerated high levels of graft. In the Ukrainian elections of 2004, there was strong evidence of rigging to ensure the victory of Viktor Ya- nukovych, the candidate of the pro-Russian old guard. 22 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019256

Have a question about what this document contains?

Ask the documents