Abstract
AbstractAt the end of apartheid, the South African government adopted laws regulating civil society that are widely seen as “good” laws: laws designed to encourage and facilitate a thriving civil society sector. In 2019 the Ethiopian government repealed the repressive, decade-old Charities and Societies Proclamation and replaced it with a much more open and permissive regulatory system, also aimed at facilitating a thriving civil society sector. This article compares South Africa's post-apartheid civil society organization (CSO) laws with Ethiopia's 2019 law, to examine the different and overlapping ways in which these regimes attempt to advance the interests of CSOs against an historical background of state oppression. In doing so, it examines what “good” regulation of CSOs constitutes in practice and finds that there are significant limits to the effectiveness of regulatory change in addressing the many, complex problems CSOs face, especially in the wake of political and legal oppression.
Highlights
With the end of apartheid in South Africa in 1994, laws designed to oppress and control civil society organizations (CSOs) were repealed and replaced with laws designed to facilitate a thriving civil society sector, rooted in selfregulation
This article compares South Africa’s post-apartheid civil society organization (CSO) laws with Ethiopia’s 2019 law, to examine the different and overlapping ways in which these regimes attempt to advance the interests of CSOs against an historical background of state oppression
While adopting laws that limit the discretion of state agents is essential to avoid abuse of this requirement, as Ethiopia has done in the Civil Societies Proclamation 1113 (CSOP), the lesson from South Africa is that a poorly run or corrupt government agency can have a far-reaching and detrimental impact on CSOs, even under a progressive regulatory framework
Summary
With the end of apartheid in South Africa in 1994, laws designed to oppress and control civil society organizations (CSOs) were repealed and replaced with laws designed to facilitate a thriving civil society sector, rooted in selfregulation. A significant growth in the number of states using legislative measures to limit the work and funding of CSOs1 in the past decade has effectively demonstrated the extent to which the sector is influenced by legal frameworks[2] and how vulnerable civic action is to state suppression, subversion and control.[3] While scholars and activists have highlighted the many examples of “bad” or “unfavourable” civil society law, determining what constitutes “good” or “favourable” civil society law can be much more difficult. The article begins with a brief discussion of the methodology used in the research, followed by an introduction and background to each of the countries and the conditions in which regulatory change has taken place It examines four comparative aspects of South Africa’s and Ethiopia’s laws: the forms of CSOs for which the law provides; civil society fundraising; selfregulation; and state-CSO relationships. Looking at the role and limits of law in advancing civil society after periods of oppression
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
