Do defence and security institutions have a policy, or evidence, of openness towards civil society organisations (CSOs) when dealing with issues of corruption?
4a. Policy of openness
Qatar score: 0/100
There is no formal or informal policy that requires openness towards CSOs in the defence sector.
There is a policy that requires defence and security institutions to be open towards CSOs. However, there is no explicit mention of how to do that.
There is a policy that requires defence and security institutions to be open towards CSOs and the establishment of mechanisms to that end (e.g. consultation and sharing of information).
The government of Qatar deals with all matters related to the defence and security sectors with extreme secrecy.  Generally, there is minimal openness towards CSOs in Qatar. The majority of CSOs in Qatar have social and educational missions. There are no CSOs that deal with democracy or human rights. There is no relationship between CSOs and the armed forces or the Ministry of Defence. [2,3]
(1)Interview, Researcher, NA, May 5-7, 2019.
(2)Interview, Qatari Military Officer, Doha, Qatar, May 7-9, 2019.
(3)Interview, Qatar Military Officer, Doha, Qatar, May 11-12, 2019.
4b. CSO protections
Qatar score: 0/100
There is very little or no space for civil society organisations to operate within the country. Independent CSOs may be accused of / charged with treason, espionage, subversion, foreign interference, or terrorism.
CSOs are allowed to operate within the country, but the government uses manifestly restrictive laws to silence them or establishes burdensome registration and tax requirements.
CSOs enjoy a range of protections from government interference, and are able to operate within the country. However, they experience or fear potential reprisals by government.
CSOs enjoy a range of protections from government interference, and are able to operate without intimidation from the government. However, they may not have complete access or freedoms in some sensitive areas.
CSOs enjoy a range of protections (e.g. rights to freedom of expression or freedom of association) from government interference, and are able to operate openly and without intimidation from the government.
There is very little space for CSOs to operate freely and independently within the country.  Despite the fact that Article 45 of the 2004 Qatari Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of association, the Qatari Government has strict regulations in relation to CSOs.  These restrictions particularly pertain to rights-focused CSOs, advocacy-based CSOs, and any CSO involved in matters that are considered of a political nature. Article 35 of the Associations and Private Institutions Law (Law No. 12 of 2004) states that CSOs are prohibited from doing any work that is related to ‘political issues’. To establish CSOs in Qatar, permission must be granted by the Ministry of Social Affairs, which can refuse to register an organisation if it considers it to be a threat to ‘public interest’. As result, the number of CSOs registered in the country remains limited. [3,4,5,6] Law 12 of 2004 states that any organisation must have financial reserves of QAR10 million (USD$2.75 million), and a minimum of 20 members that have Qatari sponsors in the case of non-nationals. There is room for NGOs to work in Qatar, however, their work can be stopped immediately if their activities involve advocacy around human rights and political issues. [7,8]
1) CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, NGO in General Consultative Status with ECOSOC and Gulf Center for Human Rights (GCHR) ” The State of Qatar: Submission to the UN Universal Periodic Review 19th Session of the UPR Working Group”, September 16, 2013.
2)” The Qatari Constitution”, accessed October 10, 2018, https://bit.ly/2QThzR6.
3) “Transformation Index BTI: Qatar Country Report 2018″, accessed October 10, 2018, https://bit.ly/2OAEu75.
4)” Qatar country report, 2018″, Freedom House, accessed October 10,2018, https://bit.ly/2IE1pbu.
5) “Qatar, civil society and human rights: Lack of civil society space hinders work of human rights defenders”, Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR), accessed October 17, 2018, https://www.gc4hr.org/report.
6) “Reports on Qatar”, Gulf Centre for Human Rights,accessed October 17, 2018, https://www.gc4hr.org/report.
Interview, Researcher, NA, May 5-7, 2019.
Interview, Qatari Military Officer, Doha, Qatar, May 7-9, 2019.
4c. Practice of openness
Qatar score: 0/100
Requests by CSOs to work with the defence sector are denied.
There has been some consideration of engaging CSOs and meetings may have taken place with the defence sector, but they tend to take place with CSOs that are either very supportive of, or are explicitly funded by, the government. OR CSO activity is extremely minimal in this area, and defence and security institutions rarely engage for this reason.
Defence and security institutions are seeking (or are beginning to seek) CSO engagement from a range of CSOs, but not on corruption issues.
Defence and security institutions are open towards CSOs but have infrequently or superficially worked on issues of corruption. The military does not engage with CSOs on corruption issues.
Defence and security institutions have specifically worked with CSOs on corruption issues on a regular and/or in depth basis. This includes not only civilian representative of government (head of internal audit, PR person), but also military representatives.
There is limited engagement of CSOs in Qatar within the defence sector. According to our sources, many humanitarian CSOs request to collaborate with the armed forces, which are usually welcomed by the armed forces . Besides that, a few CSOs have visited the centre for strategic studies within the armed forces, discussing issues related to Qatar and the work of the centre, its mission, and challenges. Moreover, there are many NGOs (aka think tanks), which operate in the country with an international mission. “Whenever they send requests, we discuss it and usually agree to meet or collaborate, but when there is a possibility that the visit may hold a political or advocacy aim, we try to apologise in a nice way”, stated a senior Qatari military officer . In general, there is minimal openness with CSOs.
 Interview, Qatari Military Officer, Doha, Qatar, May 7-9, 2019.
Compare scores by country
Please view this page on a larger screen for the full stats.
|Country||4a. Policy of openness||4b. CSO protections||4c. Practice of openness|
|Algeria||0 / 100||0 / 100||25 / 100|
|Angola||0 / 100||25 / 100||25 / 100|
|Burkina Faso||50 / 100||75 / 100||25 / 100|
|Cameroon||0 / 100||25 / 100||25 / 100|
|Cote d'Ivoire||0 / 100||75 / 100||25 / 100|
|Egypt||0 / 100||0 / 100||0 / 100|
|Ghana||0 / 100||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Jordan||0 / 100||25 / 100||25 / 100|
|Kuwait||0 / 100||25 / 100||25 / 100|
|Lebanon||25 / 100||75 / 100||75 / 100|
|Mali||25 / 100||50 / 100||50 / 100|
|Morocco||0 / 100||50 / 100||0 / 100|
|Niger||0 / 100||50 / 100||25 / 100|
|Nigeria||0 / 100||25 / 100||50 / 100|
|Oman||0 / 100||0 / 100||0 / 100|
|Palestine||0 / 100||75 / 100||25 / 100|
|Qatar||0 / 100||0 / 100||0 / 100|
|Saudi Arabia||0 / 100||0 / 100||0 / 100|
|Tunisia||25 / 100||25 / 100||25 / 100|
|United Arab Emirates||0 / 100||0 / 100||0 / 100|