The Democracy Deficit: How donors can adapt their support for Civil Society.

When I read the news these days I am reminded of the descriptions of dictatorship in Isabel Allende’s The Stories of Eva Luna. Yet the evident weakening of democracy by conservative, populist, and reactionary governments is no fiction. In a number of countries – Russia, China, Hungary, India, and Turkey amongst others – there has been an ongoing trend of legislation and litigation that is meant to limit the scope and the influence of civil society groups.

Take India, where the incumbent government of Narendra Modi has been accused of waging a war on civil society by bringing in restrictive financial controls on foreign funding. There, by amending the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), the impact has been stark. Debasish Roy Chowdhury reveals how ‘Between 2018 and 2021, the number of NGOs filing annual returns declined by about a third.’ [i] Furthermore, pressure is also put on donors themselves. For example in 2015: ‘the government put the Ford Foundation on a watch list over funding it gave to an activist who had been pursuing legal cases against Modi’.[ii] Chowdhury further divulges:‘The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) sees the latest changes to the FCRA regime as “a tool to silence” civil society organisations in India that is “severely shrinking” the civil space and “unlawfully obstructing” the work of NGOs.’

In Europe, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, now in his third consecutive term, has long been targeting alternative voices and opinion. His phrase of promoting an ‘illiberal democracy’ was used in a speech in July 2014. In it he differentiated ‘the key factors that distinguish a fully democratic “Western” system based on liberal values and accountability from what he calls an “Eastern” approach based on a strong state, a weak opposition, and emaciated checks and balances.’[iii]

The actions of the Fidesz [iv] government since 2010 have included fixing appointees to the constitutional court and narrowing its jurisdiction; gerrymandering electoral districts; giving voting rights to ethnic Hungarians in neighbouring countries; and creating a new, party-favouring, press authority. In 2018, the government brought forward a set of laws that Amnesty International believes ‘seeks to punish the legitimate work of civil society groups that defend human rights, provide legal and social services, and offer support to people seeking international protection.’ The apparent goal being to silence independent and openly critical NGOs.

In the United States the Trump administration has adopted the same agenda. Having already loaded the Supreme Court with its appointees, it is now cutting aid and non-profit funding, and actively going after community and activist groups. For example, in a recent article for The New Republic, Malcom Ferguson [v] wrote how ‘The FBI is moving to criminalize groups like Habitat for Humanity for receiving grants from the Environmental Protection Agency under the Biden administration.’ And that ‘Citibank revealed in a court filing … that it was told to freeze the groups’ bank accounts at the FBI’s request. The reason? The FBI alleges that the groups are involved in “possible criminal violations,” including “conspiracy to defraud the United States.”’

It demonstrates, as Ferguson states, how the ‘…incoming administration not only cancels federal grants but declares recipients as criminals. All these grantees applied under government calls FOR ENVIRONMENTAL WORK, were reviewed and accepted. Trump wants to jail them.’ This is not only following the practice of using SLAPPs [vi] to destabilise the work of civil society, but strongly reeks of Orwellian Doublethink. Those that were seen as doing good at the behest of the government are now being vilified and demonized; it is Newspeak run riot.

Anne Applebaum has written, in her 2012 book Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe 1944-1956, of how the incoming Soviet authorities took power through corrupted elections, by reforming institutions in their favour, via a controlled media, and the suppression or replacement of civil society organisations. It does not seem too far-fetched to me to parallel what the conservative, right-wing, populist and reactionary parties, and their illiberal policies, are doing now.

More recently, the Turkish author Ece Temelkuran provided the seven steps from democracy to dictatorship in her 2019 book How to Lose a Country. These being: Denial that democracy is under threat; isolation, as society becomes divided into an us and them polarity; bureaucratisation used an instrument of  control; the normalisation of authoritarianism as being necessary for national strength; the criminalisation of political dissent and activism; fomenting paranoia by projecting suspicion of opponents, labelled as criminals, terrorists or enemies of the state; and, ultimately, the disappearance of the public sphere, where public debate and political expression is effectively silenced. I’ve seen such practices used in toxic organisations, but they are becoming increasingly familiar as tactics to build illiberal states.

Pluralist democracy depends on the effectiveness of the checks and balances that the rule of law and the different branches of democratic government (legislative, judicial and executive) can provide. Much of it needs people to buy into the system and to respect certain norms and values. But, when they are actively diminished, or openly ignored, and where decision-making is made by monarchical diktat (what Presidential orders effectively are) then democracy withers; the republic fails.

A spreading democracy deficit represents a danger to the space required for civil society, and their independent voice, to act within and to flourish. Indeed, the strongmen (it’s usually always men), who want the state to be recast in their image, don’t long allow for the inconvenience of contradiction. It ruffles their feathers by challenging the narrative that the strength of the state – which they seek to pervert and benefit from – has a primacy over the rights of the individual citizen.

But, what to do about this? Well the obvious is an awakening of the electorate, a change in the governing political parties by a shift at the ballot box, and a revival of democratic institutions and norms. Yet, the damage is already being done and any shift at the ballot box (if that is even allowed by those in power; recall the recent arrests of opposition candidates in Turkey and the US Capitol riots of 6^th January 2021) will also require civil society to be able to stand its ground and to show its power. Civil Society/Non-Governmental Organisations (CSOs/NGOs) need to continue to deliver alternative opinions now. To continue to press for rule by fair laws; to support those checks and balances that are needed for the functioning of government by consent; to present a strong, mediating voice that people can trust; and to ensure pluralism and equity in decision-making.

In a previous opinion piece [vii], I suggested how CSOs/NGOs might react to these times of polycrisis. Here I look to make some additional suggestions and approaches for those who strive to support such organisations. In other words, what should support organisations and donors be doing to help CSOs/NGOs to resist and to continue playing their vital role in democratic societies?

Overall, and it is something that I have long considered is necessary, I believe more needs to be done by support organisations and donors to ensure the infrastructure of civil society, what is commonly called the operating or enabling environment. As shown above, this is increasingly under attack and it needs concerted and active reinforcement. We need to fight for and strengthen the civil space.

This will require a fundamental shift in thinking and in action by support organisations and donors, so that they develop a stronger focus on supporting the logistics of CSO/NGO action. Emphasis will need to move from what they work on to backing how they can work. Helping them to work more effectively by helping them to focus towards end impact and by removing as many donor-imposed barriers as possible. To paraphrase management legend Peter Drucker, I feel that too much philanthropic giving has consisted in making it difficult for people to get their work done.

Consequently, and influenced by an Alliance Magazine article I read many years ago, I propose five broad infrastructural areas where support organisations should focus their efforts to sustain Civil Society’s enabling environment. Under each area I also offer a few suggestions of potential types of support:

• Legal and regularity framework: It is fundamental that CSOs/NGOs are allowed to operate. Restrictive rules or regulations need to be faced and challenged. Raising a voice against them requires strong legal arguments (often at constitutional level) and public awareness. Revealing restrictions as fundamental attacks on freedom and liberty need to be mainstreamed.
  • Provide legal support for organisations facing SLAPPs or other legal harassment.
  • Assist legal challenges to negative changes to registration laws or tax regulations.

• Resource base: Funding is usually the core business of support organisations and donors, but too often the way funding is provided is restrictive, directive, or focussed only on defined projects. Donors that shy away from providing core funding or always insist on co-financing need to wake up. Yes, due diligence is necessary, but now is not a time to make it more difficult for groups to work. Trust that they know what needs doing and strive for more flexibility in giving.
  • Give substantial funding for CSO/NGO core funds or for operating grant models.
  • Actively look for ways to be more financially agile, such as covering organisations’ cashflow gaps with 0% loans.
  • Allow organisations to reassess and refocus their work and approach where needed. Actively canvas organisations to do so mid-project to encourage and reward agility.

• Human and organisational capacities: Organisations are only as good as their people and only as effective as their organisation enables and allows for.
  • Focus on developing organisational governance and leadership (strengthen their capacities, capabilities and their, oft forgotten, values) and go beyond the C-suite (leadership isn’t only at the top).
  • Help to strengthen organisational capabilities by investing in a consistent, planned and long-term way. Using organisational development processes that support holistic, planned interventions and not the piecemeal, ‘hack-focussed’ approach that is sometimes evident.
  • Provide resources to help clients’ staff with personal security and well-being assistance where needed.
  • Give support to ensure organisations achieve and maintain high standards of digital and information security.

• Information and knowledge base: Much of the basis of CSO/NGO positions is supported by sound information and research. This allows them to challenge government policy or commercial activities from a strong position. Furthermore, offering alternative views and ideas to the public is necessary to counter disinformation or divisive messaging. Regaining strategic influence on the developing narrative is critical.
  • Support research that underpins progressive positions.
  • Promote alternative popular-media channels that challenge the reactionary, populist narrative.
  • Fund innovative media programming on progressive issues (contemporary arts and design are incredibly powerful tools).
  • Press for social media standards that equate with accepted journalism standards.[viii]

• Accountability strengthening: CSOs/NGOs are often targeted with restrictive legislation, enacted to question their accountability. This can result in arduous registration processes or even the weaponising of financial reporting requirements.
  • Promote public accountability and transparency efforts following international standards.
  • Assist CSOs/NGOs to ensure they have fully accountable financial systems (being squeaky-clean).
  • Support to those making conflict of interest challenges.

These suggestions all require different strategies and assessments to put them in place. I would suggest that support organisations and donors look to review the importance and urgency of the various threats to their beneficiaries in the geographical areas and topic fields that they work in. By working rapidly, with a focus on their own field and geographical areas, they can avoid a dilution of effort and, by looking to agree with other support organisations where they will act, can avoid duplication. Furthermore, they should be open to and actively canvas for the ideas and needs of their client CSOs/NGOs (which is good giving practice anyway). In doing this they will need to be creative, to focus towards maximising impact, and to be brave in truly exhibiting the values that they espouse. After all it’s about becoming the change you want to see.

References:

[i] Chowdhury, D. R. (May 2024). Narendra Modi’s War on Civil Society Cusp. Toda Peace Institute. https://toda.org/policy-briefs-and-resources/policy-briefs/report-191-full-text.html

[ii] A report on India’s philanthropic landscape by the consultancy Bain and Company estimated that foreign funding had declined by about 40% between 2015 and 2018. Between 2015 and 2019, nearly 17,000 NGOs lost their licences.

[iii] Amnesty International (May, 2018). What is going on in Illiberal democracy Hungary? https://www.amnesty.nl/actueel/what-is-going-on-in-illiberal-democracy-hungary

[iv] His political party, which Orbán refers to rather as a movement.

[v] Ferguson, M. (March 12, 2025). Trump’s FBI Moves to Criminally Charge Major Climate Groups: The Trump administration is targeting climate organizations that received a Biden-era grant. The New Republic. https://newrepublic.com/post/192660/trump-fbi-charge-climate-organizations

[vi] Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

[vii] https://endeavour.consulting/2025/02/18/addressing-overwhelm-and-regaining-agency-how-your-organisation-can-re-focus-and-be-more-hopeful-in-a-time-of-polycrisis/

[viii] There are around 400 codes covering journalistic work around the world. While various codes may differ in the detail of their content and come from different cultural traditions, most share common elements, including the principles of truthfulness, accuracy and fact-based communications, independence, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, respect for others and public accountability. Journalism ethics include the principle of limitation of harm. This may involve enhanced respect for vulnerable groups and the withholding of certain details from reports, such as the names of minors, crime victims, or information not materially related to a news report where the release of such information might, for example, harm someone’s reputation or put them at undue risk.