This document has been provided by the
International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL).

ICNL is the leading source for information on th e legal environment for civil society and public
participation. Since 1992, ICNL has served as a resource to civil society leaders, government
officials, and the donor community in over 90 countries.

Visit ICNL’s Online Library at
https://www.icnl.org/knowledge/library/index.php
for further resources and research from countries all over the world.

Disclaimers Content. The information provided herein is for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not intended and should not be
construed to constitute legal advice. The information contai ned herein may not be applicable in all situations and may not, after the date of
its presentation, even reflect the most current authority. Noth ing contained herein should be relied or acted upon without the benefit of legal
advice based upon the particular facts and circumstances pres ented, and nothing herein should be construed otherwise.
Translations. Translations by ICNL of any materials into other languages are intended solely as a convenience. Translation accuracy is not
guaranteed nor implied. If any questions arise related to the accuracy of a translation, please refer to the original language official version of
the document. Any discrepancies or differences created in the tr anslation are not binding and have no legal effect for compliance or
enforcement purposes.
Warranty and Limitation of Liability. Although ICNL uses reasonable efforts to include ac curate and up-to-date information herein, ICNL
makes no warranties or representations of any kind as to its a ccuracy, currency or completeness. You agree that access to and u se of this
document and the content thereof is at your own risk. ICNL discl aims all warranties of any kind, express or implied. Neither ICNL nor any
party involved in creating, producing or delivering this document shall be liable for any damages whatsoever arising out of access to, use of
or inability to use this document, or any e rrors or omissions in the content thereof.

Practice Note: Egypt and the Catalyst of Constraint
Douglas Rutzen 1
In the past few years, more than 50 countries have considered or enacted restrictions on civil society.
The first wave of constraints occurred after the “color revolutions” in Central Europe. The second wave
occurred in the wake of the Arab Spring. In their current manifestation, constraints target: (1) the
freedom of assembly, (2) the formation and operation of civil society organizations (“CSOs”), and (3)
the foreign funding of CSOs.
Since Egypt’s recent crackdown on civil society, Russia, Pakistan, Banglad esh, Algeria, Kyrgyzstan,
Venezuela, and Zimbabwe are a few of the countries that have considered or enacted restrictions on
civil society. We avoid imputing causation, recognizing that constraints are rooted in the context of
each country. But when global ly significant countries impose constraints, a contagion effect often
follows. Accordingly, there is concern that Egypt’s crackdown will embolden additional governments to
adopt restrictive measures, just as Russia’s restrictive CSO Law added momentum to t he first wave of
civil society legal constraints several years ago.
I. Typologies of Constraint
Civil society is confronted with a disabling legal environment in scores of countries. 2 As a threshold
matter, in many countries the law impedes the ability to form CSOs. For example:
 In Qaddafi’s Libya , the death penalty could be imposed for forming indepen dent groups.
 In Turkmenistan , 500 citizens are required to form national -level associations.
 In Eritrea , local CSOs engaged in relief and rehabilitation are required to have access to
one million US dollars – which is more than 20,000 times monthly per cap ita GDP.
Governments also employ registration laws to constrain civil society:
 In Bahrain , a CSO can be denied registration if “society does not need its services or if
there are other associations that fulfill society’s needs in the field of activity.” This
provision has been used to deny registration to human rights groups.
 In Russia , a gay rights organization was denied registration on the grounds that its work
“undermines the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation in view of
the reduction of the population.”
 In Belarus and many other countries, it is virtually impos sible to register a CSO, and
operating an unregistered organization is a criminal offense.
Even when CSOs manage to register, governments often impose limitations on their activities:
 In Uganda , a CSO must give “seven days’ advance notice in writing” of it s intent “to
make any direct contact with the people in any part of the rural area of Uganda.”
 The law of Equatorial Guinea prohibits CSOs from engaging in human rights activities.
Countries also seek to impede foreign funding and international contact:

 In Ethiopia , a 2009 Proclamation prohibits CSOs receiving more than 10 percent of their
funding from abroad from advancing human rights, children’s rights, disability rights, or
gender equality.
 In Jordan and elsewhere, foreign funding must be preapproved by the government.
 In Egypt , in addition to prior approval for foreign funding, CSOs must obtain government
permission to affiliate with any foreign organizations.
II. Recent Developments
Since 2011, countries have imposed restrictions in three general areas. First, many countries have
restricted the freedom of assembly. For example:
 In February 2012, Belarus imprisoned an activist who displayed teddy bears carrying
protest banners.
 Malaysi a adopted a law banning street protests, among other problematic provisions.
 Uganda revived a bill requiring permission for three or more people to assemble to
discuss “the principles, policy, actions or failure of any government, political party or
politi cal organization.”
Second, a number of countries have considered or enacted restrictive legislation burdening the
formation and activities of CSOs. For example:
 In January 2012, Algeria adopted a new Law on Associations. Under this law,
registration can be rejected if the association’s activities are not in the “general interest.”
In addition, the government can suspend a CSO if it determines that the organization
interferes with the “internal business” of the country.
 In violation of domestic law, in February 2012 the Governor of Masvingo Province
in Zimbabwe required CSOs to enter into Memoranda of Understanding, and he
announced the suspension of 29 CSOs that refused to do so.
 In early 2011, the government of Cambodia released a draft law that prohibited
unregistered organizations and contained no criteria limiting government discretion to
deny registration.
 In 2011, countries including Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Sudan, Iran, Syria, China, Cuba,
Ethiopia, and Vietnam impos ed Internet restrictions impeding the work of CSOs and
civic activists.
The third, and perhaps most common, trend relates to constraints on foreign funding. Egypt reflects
the zeitgeist of constraint, but Russia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Algeria, Kyrgyzstan, Venezuela, and
Ecuador are a few of the other countries that have considered or adopted foreign funding restrictions.
Among other examples:
 In Russia , the Duma recently held a hearing on the foreign funding of civil society, and
in February 2012, the Feder al Service for Financial Monitoring issued an order calling for
additional financial monitoring of Russian and foreign CSOs.

 In Pakistan , a bill on the foreign funding of CSOs was presented to the Senate in
February 2012.
 Bangladesh is currently considerin g a Foreign Donations (Voluntary Activities)
Regulation Act. Though based largely on existing constraints, the Act raises concern
because it requires organizations to receive project approval to undertake activities with
foreign funding, among other proble matic provisions.
 The January 2012 law in Algeria impedes associations from receiving foreign funding.
 In December, Kyrgyz Parliamentarians introduced a draft law to give the government
broad discretion to establish procedures governing foreign aid.
 In Ven ezuela , recipients of USG funding have been labeled “enemies of the revolution”
and warned that they face imprisonment or “popular justice” – a significant threat in
Caracas, which has one of the highest murder rates in the world. In addition, an
antiterro rism bill explicitly referencing CSOs is awaiting President Hugo Chavez’s
signature.
 In 2011, Israel considered foreign funding restrictions that would have
disproportionately burdened independent human rights groups.
 In July 2011, Ecuador issued a Decree prohibiting international organizations from
receiving bilateral or multilateral funding to implement activities in Ecuador.
In summary, recent months have marked a continuation of the “associational counter -revolution” that
began in the la st decade. While there has been progress in some countries, in many others, restrictive
laws have been considered or enacted. In response, ICNL is engaged with country partners and the
international community to help preserve safe legal space for civil soc iety. For further information,
please see www.icnl.org .
1 Douglas Rutzen is President and CEO of the International Center for Not -for -Profit Law
2 For a more comprehensive summary of constraints, please see the report “ Defending Civil
Society ,” which ICNL drafted in conjunction with the World Movement for Democracy Secretariat at
the NED.