By Clarisse Sih and Bibbi Abruzzini, Forus, EU SEE consortium partners
With major elections approaching across multiple regions in 2026, election-related violence remains a critical threat to democratic participation and the enabling environment worldwide. Beyond election day itself, violence before, during and after electoral processes continues to erode trust in institutions, silence dissenting voices and prevent civil society from fully exercising their fundamental freedoms of peaceful assembly and association.
These dynamics were at the centre of the EU SEE webinar “Election-related Violence and its Impact on the Enabling Environment: What Role for Civil Society?”, which brought together civil society leaders, academics and international experts to examine root causes, lived realities and possible pathways forward last January 15, 2026.
Restrictions and narratives as tools to shrink the enabling environment
Election-related violence does not occur in isolation. According to Gina Romero, UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, restrictions imposed during electoral periods often have long-term consequences.
“Every time there are restrictions on assembly and association, it undermines trust in the system. These measures don’t disappear after elections — they create a chain effect that deepens distress and weakens democracy over time,” she warned.
For many civil society organisations, elections are moments of heightened risk. While they play a vital role in voter education, monitoring and documentation, they are often treated as threats rather than partners in democratic processes.
Lived realities: when elections are marked by fear
Speakers highlighted how patterns of violence are deeply embedded in political systems where power is contested through coercion rather than ideas. Ugandan author and human rights defender Kakwenza Rukirabashaija described elections in his country as cycles of repression rather than democratic choice.
“The ballot papers come last. Batons, courts and prisons come first. As long as you are visible, you are seen as a threat to power,” he said, pointing to judicial harassment, financial pressure and repeated crackdowns on opposition and civil society.
From Honduras, José Ramón Ávila Quiñonez, Executive Director of ASONOG and Forus member, described a highly polarised electoral context marked by political instability, gender-based violence and foreign interference.
“More than 560 incidents of election-related violence were documented ahead of the 2025 elections, including threats, coercion and the killing of at least seven candidates,” he explained.
“States of exception and heavy security deployments were presented as solutions, but they further restricted civic space and increased fear,” he added.
Civil society organisations documented abuses, ran prevention campaigns and filed complaints with electoral authorities — efforts that helped reduce incidents in some urban areas but often at significant risk to activists.
Women face disproportionate harm
Across contexts, speakers emphasised that election-related violence is deeply gendered. Women candidates, activists and journalists face targeted harassment, including sexualised threats and digital attacks aimed at discouraging their participation.
“This violence is not incidental — it is designed to push women out of public life,” José Ramón noted, highlighting how many women candidates withdrew due to safety concerns.
Manjula Gajanayake, Executive Director of Sri Lanka’s Institute for Democratic Reforms and Electoral Studies (IRES), echoed this concern, stressing that even in contexts where reforms have reduced violence, women remain particularly exposed.
“Challenges persist, especially for women candidates. Protection mechanisms must be intentional and sustained — not temporary responses during elections.”
What works: institutions, civil society and technology
Despite these challenges, speakers highlighted examples of progress. In Sri Lanka, electoral violence declined following the creation of an independent election commission, combined with strong civil society engagement and formal cooperation with social media platforms.
“Strong institutions, active civil society, political dialogue and smart use of technology together can change electoral dynamics,” Manjula explained.
From an academic perspective, Sarah Birch, Professor of Political Science at King’s College London, identified structural drivers of election-related violence — including weak rule of law, corruption and high-stakes elections — but stressed that prevention is possible.
“Election observation, accountability for violent actors and peace messaging can all work — but strategies must be adapted to context,” she said.
The role of international actors: too little, too late?
A recurring concern was whether the international community responds reactively rather than preventively. While election observation missions are increasingly present, their credibility is often questioned.
“There is a gap between discourse and practice,” José Ramón warned.
“International actors call for security but often fail to denounce violations when political interests are at stake.”
Speakers called for greater coherence, early action, and sustained support to civil society — particularly women-led organisations — before violence escalates.
A call to protect civic space beyond election day
The webinar underscored that election-related violence is not only an electoral issue — it is an enabling environment issue. While emergency measures and states of exception can, in principle, be lawfully justified under strict safeguards, electoral periods often see an expansion of security-led responses and restrictive narratives that frame dissent as a threat. In practice, these approaches can concentrate power in the hands of authorities, weaken oversight, and shrink civic space. Elections also tend to intensify already combative political discourse, reinforcing a political culture that treats civil society as opposition rather than as a legitimate democratic actor — dynamics that do not disappear once the ballots are counted.
As Gina Romero concluded:
“Free and fair elections are impossible without freedoms of assembly and association. Protecting civil society is not optional — it is a prerequisite for democracy.”
As the 2026 election cycle approaches, the message from civil society is clear: preventing violence requires early engagement, strong institutions, gender-sensitive protection measures and genuine international support — not just during elections, but long after ballots are cast.