kathimerini.gr
Global Crackdown on NGOs by Authoritarian Regimes
Authoritarian governments globally, including those of Turkey, Hungary, and Russia, are cracking down on NGOs, citing concerns about terrorism and regime change; Greece is also conducting audits of NGOs, potentially mirroring these trends.
- What are the long-term consequences of systematically discrediting and suppressing NGOs for democratic accountability and governance?
- The targeting of NGOs by right-wing governments stems from their hierarchical worldview, rejecting any entity outside direct state control. This opposition isn't merely ideological; it eliminates oversight on government funding and potentially facilitates corruption. The smear campaign against NGOs, often using racist tropes to generalize from individual infractions, allows these governments to justify their actions and suppress dissent.
- How do the economic interests of governments intersect with their suppression of NGOs, and what specific examples illustrate this connection?
- Authoritarian regimes internationally target NGOs. Turkey's Erdogan government increased NGO oversight, allowing the Interior Minister to replace members of organizations investigated for "terrorism". Hungary's Orban passed a law enabling prosecution of foreign NGOs deemed "undesirable". Russia's Putin, since 2015, has accused Western powers of seeking regime change using NGOs (Kathimerini, 3.27.2015), a narrative followed by the deaths of several NGO leaders, including Alexei Navalny.
- What are the global implications of authoritarian governments targeting NGOs, and what specific actions are they taking to control these organizations?
- Six months ago, Donald Trump issued a directive ordering heads of government agencies to review all funding for Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and align future decisions with US interests and administration priorities (White House, 2.6.2025).", This echoes similar actions globally. Greek Minister of Migration and Asylum, Athanasios Plevris, announced an upcoming audit of NGOs registered with his ministry, expressing concern over those "opposing" the ministry (ERT, 20.6.2025).
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The narrative structure heavily emphasizes negative portrayals of governments' actions against NGOs, using strong language and examples of authoritarian crackdowns. The introduction sets a negative tone, and the article consistently highlights negative consequences. This framing pushes the reader towards a predetermined conclusion that all government scrutiny of NGOs is inherently negative.
Language Bias
The article uses strong, negative language to describe government actions, such as "authoritarian," "crackdowns," and "suppression." The use of such terms influences reader perception, framing NGOs as victims and governments as aggressors. More neutral terms could be used such as "regulation" or "scrutiny." The repeated comparison to authoritarian regimes also creates a negative connotation.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the actions of authoritarian regimes against NGOs, providing numerous examples. However, it omits discussion of potential benefits or positive impacts of NGOs, or counterarguments to the claims made. This omission creates a biased perspective that only highlights the negative aspects of NGO-government interactions.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the issue as a simple conflict between authoritarian regimes and NGOs. It fails to acknowledge the diversity of NGOs and their varied relationships with governments. Some NGOs may collaborate effectively with governments, while others may genuinely challenge authoritarianism. This oversimplification prevents a nuanced understanding of the complex dynamics at play.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights how authoritarian regimes are increasingly targeting and suppressing NGOs, which undermines democratic institutions, the rule of law, and civic participation. This directly impacts SDG 16, which promotes peaceful and inclusive societies, access to justice for all, and building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.