As Europe grapples with political upheaval and geopolitical crises, a subtle yet far-reaching development is unfolding: the stigmatisation and suppression of civil society organisations. This trend is currently being demonstrated with rare bluntness in Georgia. By tightening its NGO law, the government plans to exercise maximum control over NGO funding – a move that could effectively end the influence of independent organisations. Meanwhile, pro-government organisations will benefit from state funding for the first time. In this way, Georgia is following a pattern that has long since spread beyond the region: state control replaces international funding and becomes an instrument of political power.
At a time when authoritarian regimes and populist governments are on the rise, shaking the very foundations of democracy and human rights, the Council of Europe must assert itself as more than just a symbolic stronghold. As a protector of civil society, the Strasbourg-based organisation faces the challenge of establishing itself as an indispensable bastion of civil protection and enhancing its strategic importance.
### The axis of authoritarianism
Hungary, Turkey and Azerbaijan are prime examples of how state actors systematically seek to silence critical voices within civil society. Their tactics range from repressive legislation and media smear campaigns to direct threats and acts of violence.
These developments point to a calculated effort to curtail civic space — often under the pretext of national security, allegedly to counter foreign interference. Yet, in reality, this is nothing but a strategic pretence. The real goal is to stifle dissent and consolidate power. The growing willingness of governments to restrict their own citizens’ right to association signals a shift towards increasingly autocratic governance.
As early as January 2021, the [Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe](https://www.ips-journal.eu/topics/democracy-and-society/the-other-european-election-7344/) — an exceptional parliamentary body within an international organisation — warned of the devastating impact that restrictive measures were having on civil society in countries like Azerbaijan, Russia and Turkey. This warning was echoed by the Venice Commission, the Council of Europe’s constitutional expert group.
> In March 2023, then-Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović, expressed deep concern over severe restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly during protests against the pension reform in France.
These developments not only affect countries outside of the EU; in recent years, they have also become increasingly evident within the EU itself. In March 2023, then-Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović, expressed deep concern over severe restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly during protests against the pension reform in France. Around the same time, the Italian government pushed through controversial constitutional amendments that have been described as a ‘war on NGOs’. Recognising these developments as a broader trend, Human Rights Commissioner Michael O’Flaherty stressed in early 2025 the pressing need to safeguard civil society across all Council of Europe member states.
This warning has proven timely, as similar trends have started to take shape in Germany. In late February 2025, Friedrich Merz’s conservative parliamentary group submitted an extensive inquiry to the federal government. At the heart of this inquiry is the funding of NGOs involved in protests against the far right. The 551 questions aim to expose these organisations’ financial sources and scrutinise their ties to political parties. At the same time, the inquiry emphasises that state-funded organisations must maintain political neutrality and refrain from interfering in election campaigns — otherwise, they risk losing their non-profit status. Some constitutional experts view this inquiry as an abuse of the opposition’s parliamentary right to pose questions, while the affected organisations see it primarily as an attempt to silence them.
### The resilience of democracy
All the more remarkable is the resilience and creativity many NGOs demonstrate in confronting these challenges. They not only build strong networks but also engage in meaningful dialogue with international institutions. At the same time, they skilfully employ legal mechanisms and strategic public criticism to advance their cause. Nowhere is this more evident than in Ukraine, which serves as undeniable proof that a strong civil society is the most effective safeguard for democracy — standing at the very heart of Ukraine’s resistance against Russian aggression and fighting for democracy. By mobilising volunteers, providing humanitarian aid, and rebuilding destroyed infrastructure, Ukrainian civic organisations have made a significant contribution to the resilience of cities like Kharkiv and Sumy.
> Bridging the gap between theory and practice, NGOs advocate for participatory democracy and serve as a vital link to civil society across Europe.
NGOs and their work are vital to safeguarding and contributing to the health and proper functioning of democracy as a whole. They are a representative voice of social groups and citizens and hence take up important functions for civil society in democratic processes. International NGOs are directly involved in shaping and implementing the Council of Europe’s legal framework, leveraging their institutional ties within the organisation. Collectively, they provide a comprehensive perspective on civil society’s priorities and concerns. Bridging the gap between theory and practice, they advocate for participatory democracy and serve as a vital link to civil society across Europe. Through these efforts, they contribute to public discourse and influence political actors and institutions.
### A rare jewel of the rule of law
One key instrument in addressing the crack-down on NGOs is the European Court of Human Rights. It is the Council of Europe’s most powerful tool in Strasbourg and without parallel anywhere in the world. Yet, all too often, its rulings fail to have their intended impact. The European Convention on Human Rights has been ratified by all member states, making it legally binding on their governments. The Committee of Ministers should therefore enforce the Convention more rigorously: states that disregard rulings must be held accountable — using all available means, including political and institutional levers. Furthermore, oversight mechanisms should be reinforced. The Parliamentary Assembly has demonstrated on numerous occasions that targeted monitoring can exert political pressure and drive meaningful change. The Venice Commission plays a pivotal role in this process. Its assessments are essential for detecting democratic backsliding at an early stage. But they should not remain abstract and detached from reality. Concrete steps must follow — especially when laws, like the recent ones in Georgia, suppress the work of civil society organisations.
> The future of democracy in Europe will be decided not only at the ballot box but also by the resilience of its institutions.
It is evident that these highly complex tasks and the coordinated efforts of the various institutions of the Council of Europe require adequate financial resources. Yet, there is a glaring lack of funding at present. This becomes particularly evident when examining the Council of Europe’s budget: it currently amounts to less than half a per cent of the EU’s total budget.
Amidst financial issues and other challenges, the future could set new horizons: former Swiss President and Social Democrat Alain Berset assumed office as the new Secretary General of the Council of Europe in September 2024. The way Berset responds to these immense challenges — and the institutional vision he brings — will not only determine the future of the Council of Europe as a protector of civil society but could also have far-reaching implications for Europe’s overall political trajectory. Ultimately, the Council of Europe’s ability to exert influence depends on whether — and how — it can translate its normative authority into concrete political action and hold member states accountable to their commitments. The future of democracy in Europe will be decided not only at the ballot box but also by the resilience of its institutions.