CIVICUS discusses protests in Costa Rica with Raúl Silesky, Chair of the Board of Directors of the Institute for the Press and Freedom of Expression, a civil society organisation that defends freedom of expression and access to public information. 

On 6 August, thousands of people mobilised in Costa Rica to defend judicial independence, against a backdrop of recent tension between the branches of government over delays in appointing substitute judges to the Constitutional Chamber and cuts to the judiciary’s budget.

What sparked the protests?

Even before the protests, there had been growing tension between the executive, the Legislative Assembly and the judiciary, exacerbated by the announcement of a significant cut to the judiciary’s funding. 

The 6 August protest centred on the Plaza de la Democracia in the capital, San José, and was replicated in other regions. High-ranking officials, such as the attorney general and the head of the Judicial Investigation Agency, as well as a former president, joined the protest. 

The trigger was a conflict between the branches of government over the appointment of substitute judges to the Constitutional Chamber. Nine posts had remained vacant since December, and the Legislative Assembly had been unable to secure the 38 votes required to finalise the appointments. As this could affect the Chamber’s functioning, it decided to temporarily extend expired terms until the legislature fulfils its responsibility to approve the new members.

How did the government react?

The executive’s response was political and confrontational. The presidency described the Chamber’s decision as a potential coup and brought a complaint against four judges for alleged malfeasance, which is the offence of issuing rulings while knowing them to be contrary to the law. 

While the executive may disagree with a ruling and has the right to resort to the available legal mechanisms, in this case many interpreted its actions as part of a broader narrative aimed at delegitimising the judiciary by portraying judges as political enemies, and warned against the use of institutional resources as instruments of pressure. 

For broad sectors of academia, the legal profession and society, the conflict ceased to be a technical debate about appointments. It came to focus on the preservation of democratic institutions and judicial independence.

Who took part and how did they coordinate?

The call to action via social media and other networking platforms succeeded in bringing together a wide range of people from different groups because it was organised around common principles, not a party political platform. Trade unions of judicial professionals were joined by citizens’ groups, families, pensioners, professionals, public universities, students, social organisations and people with no organisational affiliation. 

Each had their motivations. Judicial staff focused on institutional autonomy, trade unions on labour issues and universities on the defence of higher education. 

The call to action spread via social media and other channels, transcending ideological and other differences. The mobilisation was built around common principles of the defence of the Constitution, democracy, judicial independence, the rule of law and the separation of powers.

What are civil society’s demands?

The fundamental demand is that the rules of the democratic game be respected. 

Civil society demands that the Legislative Assembly fulfil its constitutional responsibility and resolve the outstanding appointments. 

It demands that the separation of powers – and consequently judicial independence – be respected. The branches of government must keep each other in check, even when their decisions prove inconvenient for the incumbent government. Cutting the judiciary’s budget undermines its decision-making capacity. 

Civil society also calls for effective channels of dialogue. Institutional conflicts and changes must be addressed through constitutional mechanisms, public debate and the search for consensus, not through disparagement or political pressure.

What risks does Costa Rica’s democracy face?

The main risk to democracy is the normalisation of rhetoric that portrays the Comptroller-General’s Office, the judiciary, the press, universities and other institutions as enemies when they exercise their oversight functions. Democracies do not fall only through abrupt ruptures. Delegitimisation erodes one of democracy’s fundamental pillars, public trust in institutions. 

That is why Costa Rica needs more dialogue, more respect and a citizenry willing to defend the principles that underpin the rule of law regardless of who’s in power. The defence of democracy must be a common cause.

CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent.