Civil Liberties and Freedoms as Association Contexts



As vital aspects of genuine democracy and of widespread citizen participation, even in authoritarian nations/regimes, civil liberties and freedoms are important contextual factors affecting the development, growth, operation, and survival of nonprofit membership associations (MAs) and of individual formal volunteering in any society. Quantitative research on the prevalence of both formal volunteering and MAs supports this statement with solid empirical evidence on sets of most contemporary nations (Halman 2003:191; Schofer and Longhofer 2011:565; Smith and Shen 2002:115, 117). This chapter examines the role of civil liberties and freedoms as they affect volunteering and MAs, with primary emphasis on the interrelated freedoms of association and of assembly. Chapter contributors focus on these issues in their birth countries – the United States, Ukraine, Belarus, and the Philippines.


Gross Domestic Product Shadow Price Voluntary Association Voluntary Sector Replacement Cost 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arugay, Aries A. 2011. “The Philippine Military: Still Politicized and Increasingly Autonomous.” Pp. 85–106 in The Political Resurgence of the Military in Southeast Asia: Conflict and Leadership, edited by M. Mietzner. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Arugay, Aries A. 2012. “Tracking Textbooks for Transparency: Improving Accountability in Education in the Philippines.” Discussion paper for the Democracy and Development Programme. Stockholm, Sweden: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.Google Scholar
  3. Bazhan, Oleh Hryhorovych. 1999. “Ukrains’ka Hel’sins’ka Hrupa: Legal’na forma prostystoyannya totalitarnomu rezhymovi v U.R.S.R.” [Ukrainian Helsinki Group: Forms of Legal Resistance to the Totalitarian Regime in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic]. Kyiv, Ukraine: The National Library of Ukraine, Naukovi Zapysky 14:73–79.Google Scholar
  4. Bekeshkina Iryna Erykivna, and Piotr Kaźmierkiewicz. 2012. “Making Ukraine’s Civil Society Matter: Enabling Ukrainian NGOs to Absorb International Assistance. A review of Capacity Gaps and Needs for Institutional Support.” Warsaw, Poland: Institute of Public Affairs. Retrieved December 28, 2012 from
  5. Bresler, Robert J. 2004. Freedom of Association: Rights and Liberties under the Law. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, Donald E. 1991. Human Universals. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  7. Brovkin, Victor. 1990. “Revolution from Below: Informal Political Associations in Russia 1988–1989.” Soviet Studies 42(2):233–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cariño, Ledivina V. 2002. Between the State and the Market: The Nonprofit Sector and Civil Society in the Philippines. Quezon City, Philippines: University of the Philippines, Center for Leadership, Citizenship, and Democracy.Google Scholar
  9. Chenoweth, Erica, and Maria J. Stephan. 2011. Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Christensen, Darin, and Jeremy M. Weinstein. 2013. “Defunding Dissent: Restrictions on Aid to NGOs.” Journal of Democracy 24(2):77–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Civicus. 2006. Impact of Counterterrorism Measures on Civil Society. Southdale, South Africa: Civicus.Google Scholar
  12. Clarke, Gerard. 2006. The Politics of NGOs in Southeast Asia: Participation and Protest in the Philippines. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Constitution of the USSR 1936. English translation, Bucknell University. Retrieved December 30, 2012 from
  14. Decree of the President of Ukraine. 2012. Ukaz Prezydenta Ukrainy No 212/2012, “Pro strategiyu derzhavnoyi polityky spryiannya rozvytku hromadyans’koho suspil’stva v Ukraini ta pershochergovi zahody ii realizatzii” [On the Strategy of Public Policy to Promote the Development of Civil Society in Ukraine and Priority Measures for its Implementation].Google Scholar
  15. Kyiv, Ukraine: Office of the President of Ukraine. Retrieved January 12, 2013 from
  16. A. De Tocqueville 2000 H.C. Mansfield D. Winthrop Democracy in America University of Chicago Press Chicago, IL [1843] de Tocqueville, Alexis. [1843] 2000. Democracy in America, translated by Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Diamond, Larry. 2007. The Spirit of Democracy: The Struggle to Build Free Societies throughout the World. New York: Times Books, Holt.Google Scholar
  18. Diamond, Larry, and Marc F. Plattner, eds. 2001. The Global Divergence of Democracies. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Eaton, Kent. 2003. “Restoration or Transformation? Trapos versus NGOs in the Democratization of the Philippines.” Journal of Asian Studies 62(2):469–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Feldbrugge, Ferdinand J. M. 1980. “The Soviet Human Rights Doctrine in the Crossfire between Dissidents at Home and Critics Abroad.” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 13:451–466.Google Scholar
  21. Fisher, Julie. 2013. Importing Democracy: The Role of NGOs in South /Africa, Tajikistan, & Argentina. Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation Press.Google Scholar
  22. Freedom House. 2012. “Freedom in the World 2012: The Arab Uprisings and their Global Repercussions; Selected data from Freedom House’s Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties.” Washington, DC. Retrieved December 28, 2012 from
  23. Gutmann, Amy, ed. 1998. Freedom of Association. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Halman, Loek. 2003. “Volunteering, Democracy, and Democratic Attitudes.” Pp. 179–198 in The Values of Volunteering: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, edited by P. Dekker and L. Halman. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hegyesi, Gábor. 1992. “The Revival of the Nonprofit Sector in Hungary.” Pp. 309–322 in The Nonprofit Sector in the Global Community: Voices from Many Nations, edited by K. D. McCarthy, V. A. Hodgkinson, R. D. Sumariwalla and Associates. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  26. Hendley, Kathryn. 1996. Trying to Make Law Matter: Legal Reform and Labor Law in the Soviet Union. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hook, Sidney. 1953. Hersey, Yes, Conspiracy, No. New York: John Day & Co.Google Scholar
  28. Human Rights Watch. 2013. Russia: “Foreign Agents” Law Hits Hundreds of NGOs: Updated November 29, 2013. Retrieved December 10, 2013 from
  29. Huntington, Samuel P. 1991. The ThirdWave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  30. Inazu, John D. 2012. Liberty’s Refuge: The Forgotten Freedom of Assembly. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  31. International Partnership Group for Azerbaijan (IPGA). 2013. Azerbaijan: New Legislative Amendments Further Erode Rights to Freedom of Expression and Peaceful Assembly, Article 19. Retrieved December 7, 2013 from
  32. Kateb, George. 1998. “The Value of Association.” Pp. 32–40 in Freedom of Association, edited by Amy Guttman. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Kudelia, Serhiy. 2012. “The Sources of Continuity and Change of Ukraine’s Incomplete State.” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 45(3–4):417–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kurlantzick, Joshua. 2013. Democracy in Retreat. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kuts, Svitlana, and Lyuba Palyvoda. 2006. “Civil Society in Ukraine: ‘Driving Engine or Spare Wheel for Change’?” CIVICUS Civil Society Index Report for Ukraine. Kyiv, Ukraine: Center for Philanthropy and Counterpart Creative Center.Google Scholar
  36. Kuzio, Taras. 2012. “Twenty Years as an Independent State: Ukraine’s Ten Logical Inconsistencies.” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 45(3–4):429–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Law, David S., and Mila Versteeg. 2013. “Sham Constitutions.” 101 California Law Review 863. Washington University in St. Louis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 12-09-03.Google Scholar
  38. Law on Public Associations, B. V. R., no. 1, pg. 1 (2013) (Ukraine).
  39. Law on Volunteering, B. V. R., no. 42, st. 435 (2011) (Ukraine).
  40. Lijphart, Arend. 1977. Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration. NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lowie, Robert H. 1948. Social Organization. New York: Rinehart.Google Scholar
  43. Lyakh, Tetyana Leonidivna. 2012. Analiz zakonu Ukrainy “Pro Volonters’ku Diyal’nist” [Analysis of Ukraine’s Law on Volunteering]. Kyiv, Ukraine: Koordynatzijna rada z pytan’ rozvytku gromads’kogo suspil’stva pry Prezydentovi Ukrainy [Coordination Council on the Development of Civil Society at the Office of the President of Ukraine]. Retrieved December 28, 2012 from
  44. Magadia, Jose J. 2003. State-Society Dynamics: Policy Making in a Restored Democracy. Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Markoff, John. 1996.Waves of Democracy: Social Movements and Political Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  46. Marples, David R. 2005. “Europe’s Last Dictatorship: The Roots and Perspectives of Authoritarianism in ‘White Russia’.” Europe-Asia Studies 57(6):895–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mendoza, Amado, Jr. 2009. “‘People Power’ in the Philippines, 1983–86.” Pp. 179–196 in Civil Resistance and Power Politics: The Experience of Non-violent Action from Gandhi to the Present, edited by A. Roberts and T. Garton. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Murray, Charles. 2012. Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960–2010. New York: Crown Forum.Google Scholar
  49. OMBWatch. 2003. The USA Patriot Act and Its Impact on Nonprofit Organizations. Washington, DC: OMBWatch.Google Scholar
  50. Osborne, Robin. 2010. Athens and Athenian Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Palyvoda, Lyubov, and Sophia Golota. 2010. “Civil Society Organizations in Ukraine. The State and Dynamics (2002–2009): Survey Report.” Kyiv, Ukraine: Publishing house “Kupol.”Google Scholar
  52. Puddington, Arch. 2013. Freedom in the World 2013: Democratic Breakthroughs in the Balance. Overview Essay for the Web.
  53. Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Racelis, Mary. 2000. “New Visions and Strong Actions: Civil Society in the Philippines.” Pp. 159–189 in Funding Virtue: Civil Society Aid and Democracy Promotion, edited by Marina Ottaway and Thomas Carothers. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
  55. Redish, Martin H., and Christopher R. McFadden. 2001.”HUAC, the Hollywood Ten and the First Amendment Rights of Non-Association.” Minnesota Law Review 85 (June):1669–1728.Google Scholar
  56. Riabchuk, Mykola. 2012. “Ukraine’s ‘Muddling through’: National Identity and Postcommunist Transition.” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 45(3–4):439–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rosenblum, Nancy. 1998. Membership and Morals: The Personal Uses of Pluralism in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Schofer, Evan, and Wesley Longhofer. 2011. “The Structural Sources of Association.” American Journal of Sociology 117:539–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schrecker, Ellen. 1998. Many are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Shevtsova, Lilia. 2012. “Russia under Putin: Titanic Looking for its Iceberg?” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 45(3–4):209–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sidel, Mark. 2007. More Secure, Less Free? Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  62. Sidel, Mark. 2010. Regulation of the Voluntary Sector: Freedom and Security in an Era of Uncertainty. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. Silitsky, Vital. 2005. “Preempting Democracy.” Journal of Democracy 16(4):83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Smith, David H., ed. 1974. Voluntary Action Research: 1974. The Nature of Voluntary Action Around the World. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  65. Smith, David H. 2015. “S-Theory as a Comprehensive Explanation of Formal Volunteering: Testing The Theory of Everyone on Russian National Sample Interview Data.” Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of ARNOVA, Chicago, IL, USA, November 19–21.Google Scholar
  66. Smith, David H. (forthcoming) 2017. “The Global, Historical and Contemporary Impacts of Voluntary Membership Associations on Human Societies.” Voluntaristics Review: Brill Research Perspectives 2(2).Google Scholar
  67. Smith, David H., and John P. Robinson. (forthcoming) 2016. “Data Contradicting Putnam’s Two Participation Decline Theses: Recent Volunteering and Membership Rates and Trends in North America and Elsewhere.” Chestnut Hill, MA: Department of Sociology, Boston College. Unpublished paper submitted for editorial review.Google Scholar
  68. Smith, David H., and Ce Shen. 2002. “The Roots of Civil Society: A Model of Voluntary Association Prevalence Applied to Data on Larger Contemporary Nations.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 42(2):93–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Smith, David H., Robert A. Stebbins, and Michael Dover. 2006. A Dictionary of Nonprofit Terms and Concepts. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Smith, David H., with Ting Zhao. (in press) 2016. “Review and Assessment of China’s Nonprofit Sector after Mao: Emerging Civil Society?” Voluntaristics Review: Brill Research Perspectives 1(5).Google Scholar
  71. Stewart, Susan. 2009. “NGO Development in Ukraine since the Orange Revolution.” Pp. 177–194 in Ukraine on Its Way to Europe: Interim Results of the Orange Revolution, edited by Juliane Besters-Dilger. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  72. Subtelny, Orest. 1988. Ukraine: A History. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  73. Thompson, Mark R. 1995. The Anti-Marcos Struggle: Personalistic Rule and Democratic Transition in the Philippines. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Turner, Jonathan H. 2003. Human Institutions: A Theory of Societal Evolution. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  75. United States Department of State 2012a. 2011 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices; Europe and Eurasia, reports on Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine. Retrieved December 28, 2012 from
  76. United States Department of State 2012b. 2011 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices; South and Central Asia, reports on Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan Retrieved December 28, 2012 from
  77. van Voren, Robert. 2010. “Political Abuse of Psychiatry – An Historical Overview.” Schizophrenia Bulletin 36(1):33–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Venice Commission. 2011. Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly of Ukraine. Retrieved December 28, 2012 from
  79. Wang, Ming, ed. 2011. Emerging Civil Society in China, 1978–2008. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.Google Scholar
  80. Wang, Shaoguang, and Jianyu He. 2004. “Associational Revolution in China: Mapping the Landscapes.” Korea Observer 35:485–533.Google Scholar
  81. Warren, Mark E. 2001. Democracy and Association. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Weekley, Kathleen. 2001. The Communist Party of the Philippines 1968–1993: A Story of Its Theory and Practice. Quezon City, Philippines: University of the Philippines Press.Google Scholar
  83. Williams, Robert C. 1975. “Review of ‘To Defend These Rights: Human Rights and the Soviet Union,’ by Valery Chalidze.” Washington University Law Review 1975(3):866–876.Google Scholar
  84. Youngblood, Robert L. 1990. Marcos Against the Church: Economic Development and Political Repression in the Philippines. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.USA
  2. 2.Ukraine
  3. 3.Philippines
  4. 4.Belarus
  5. 5.USA

Personalised recommendations