William Nattrass is a freelance journalist and commentator based in Prague and covers Central Europe.
Since the European Union’s Qatargate corruption scandal erupted late last year, much of the debate has increasingly focused on the blame apportionable to Brussels’ sprawling NGO sector.
Along these lines, conservatives argue there’s now a pressing need to impose stricter transparency requirements on NGOs — after all, those skeptical of ulterior motives among such organizations couldn’t have dreamt up a better example of hypocrisy than allegations that an organization called Fight Impunity was sitting at the center of a web of international bribery.
Meanwhile, left-wing groups are countering this argument, saying that one or two bad apples are being used as an excuse to scapegoat the whole fruit barrel. But not only is their argument flawed — it also fails to see the opportunity such requirements could bring.
In light of Qatargate, the European Commission is now trying to inject more accountability and transparency into the NGO sector, with new requirements being planned for the disclosure of such organizations’ non-EU funding. But NGOs have quickly adopted a defensive position against any attempts to create these new reporting obligations, pointing out a degree of hypocrisy in the EU’s plans.
Just weeks ago, EU officials were expressing grave concerns about proposed legislation in Georgia, which would have imposed new requirements on organizations and individuals receiving at least 20 percent of their funding from abroad, requiring them to register as agents of foreign influence.
And organizations claim that the EU’s planned legislation would put NGOs at similar risk of suppression, with Nick Aiossa, Transparency International’s head of policy and advocacy, saying he worries that stricter reporting requirements for NGOs “will be abused by far-right parties, some of whom are already in power. Orbán in Hungary, Meloni in Italy; I mean, they are not fans of NGOs.”
But opposing the EU’s plan on these grounds is problematic.
For one thing, claiming that right-wing forces will abuse new regulations reinforces a narrative in which the political right is seen as the enemy of civil society. And this comes uncomfortably close to open engagement with party politics — something that any nonpolitical organization claiming a right to influence policymaking should scrupulously avoid.
At the same time, it’s solipsistic to argue that tougher regulations on the NGO sector would be undemocratic. NGOs fall into a dangerous trap if they believe their own freedom to operate without scrutiny is what constitutes democracy. On the contrary, subjecting organizations that influence policy to tough transparency requirements should be par for the course in a democratic society.
It is, however, true that any new reporting requirements would need to avoid being so onerous that they inhibit NGOs that aren’t well-financed from functioning. Indeed, a starting point for any tougher regulatory framework should be recognition of the sheer variety of NGOs, and an acknowledgment that they cannot all be treated the same.
The EU should thus limit its new transparency requirements to the small portion of NGOs with organizational backing that can be seen as a matter of genuine political interest. And these criteria shouldn’t be too difficult to define, as the EU regularly consults with NGOs for policymaking, rule of law reports looking into member countries, and other procedures where potential biases or hidden interests — whether stemming from sources outside or within the EU — should be thoroughly vetted.
Meanwhile, the EU’s left-wing factions like to point out that more lobbying is done in Brussels by corporate groups than NGOs — though NGOs are generally more successful in achieving their policy aims. And they accuse conservatives of unfairly focusing on NGOs to distract attention from corporate interests that distort EU policymaking.
But when it comes to protecting democracy, such criticisms miss the point. The objectives of corporate lobbyists tend to be more sharply defined than those of NGOs, and they don’t aspire to goals like upholding democratic principles or protecting human rights that often become intensely politicized.
In some ways, commercial interests can be more intrinsically transparent than noncommercial ones. For example, nobody would assume that lobbyists from Meta or Google engage with the EU from a position of principled disinterest — and their input into policymaking is evaluated accordingly.
On the other hand, the notion that the absence of a profit motive equates to greater impartiality underpins the influence of the NGO sector. But this notion ignores the possibility that in the absence of corporate interests, other less transparent motives can come to the fore — whether that be the ideological preoccupations of a wealthy backer, the shared political views of an NGO’s membership or the simple aim to build and maintain political relevance.
Among organizations that are actively involved in shaping policy, motives matter. And while it wouldn’t be in the public interest to limit the role of NGOs, the public do need to be reassured about such organizations’ commitment to playing by the same rules of transparency and accountability they profess to uphold in wider society — especially after Qatargate.
This reassurance is especially vital because, as the heated left vs. right debate over the Qatargate fallout shows, NGOs have already become a bone of political contention, whether they like it or not.
Populist movements portray NGOs as instruments for international interests to thwart national priorities, and they encourage voters to see them as partisan actors that actively oppose the wishes of democratically elected representatives. Resisting new transparency regulations will only reinforce the suspicions that the NGO sector aims to float unaccountably above the rest of Europe’s democratic institutions.
Viewed in this light, the debate opens up an opportunity — by proactively embracing stricter transparency rules, NGOs could reassure skeptical members of the public, especially in countries like Hungary and Italy, where suspicions run deep.
Thus, NGOs should see these current proposals as a chance to prove their detractors wrong. Through maximum disclosure, transparency and accountability, they now have a shot at restoring public trust, which is vital for their operations, as well as the functioning of healthy democratic societies — and they should take it.