English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Civil society is a bulwark against autocratic rule; its erosion contributes to democratic recession worldwide. Scholars and activists are calling attention to repressive laws non-democratic governments enact to undermine civil society organizations (CSOs). Yet, non-democratic governments do not only enact repressive laws; they also enact permissive, quasi-democratic legal rules. Evidence from case studies suggests that non-democratic governments enact such rules as part of a broader strategy to stabilize the regime. This article adds a within-case comparative study of Kenya’s four CSO regulators to the growing evidence showing that non-democracies can choose to manipulate civil society rather than repress it. The government’s words and documentation provide evidence: I triangulate elite interviews with elected officials and bureaucrats with archival data from government libraries and four CSO regulators. I find that the government enacts permissive legal rules and then uses several control and consultation tactics collectively, separately, and episodically to manipulate CSOs and legitimise the regime.

To manipulate and legitimise: government officials explain why non-democracies enact and enforce permissive civil society laws