- The criminalization of NGOs- A promising “scapegoat”? - 9 February, 2026
- Geopolitical repercussions of the Sumud Flotilla - 7 January, 2026
- The Journey of the New Pope - 28 November, 2025
Introduction
The criminalisation of NGOs is a peculiar phenomenon that has become more common in the last decades. The reasons behind this trend of geopolitical and political nature. The identification of a “scapegoat” is not only a valuable tool to unite community members against a common enemy, but also a way to protect political interests, even if this clashes against the law. National governments and politicians have often targeted NGOs using legal means and instrumentalizing them to pursue a political or geopolitical strategy. Regardless of the political colour of an NGO, its members can have various reasons to critizise a government and can thus suffer repercussions. Several cases can clarify the main aspects of these trends and also predict how such trends might evolve in the future, and the potential consequences. The criminalization of NGOs can include legal restrictions, judicial harassment, criminal prosecutions, vilification and delegitimization on many levels. This phenomenon has been registered within single countries and in broader geopolitical situations involving multiple nations. This article elaborates on the question: What are the political and geopolitical reasons for the increasing criminalisation of NGOs and what trends does such phenomenon imply?
Political discourse and confrontations
Domestic political agendas are among the most common reasons to criminalize NGOs, as these organizations are often said to act where governments fail or choose not to act, revealing law violations and injustices. These organizations can threaten the credibility of national governments and parties by acting in areas neglected by the former and by bringing them under a negative light in front of their electorates and the international community. It is the case of many humanitarian NGOs that have repeatedly been at the centre of various controversies in the Mediterranean. A striking example happened in Greece in 2021, where NGO members were criminally prosecuted by the Greek authorities. The accusations included support to illegal migration and even espionage. Similar cases have been registered also in other Mediterranean countries, where civil responses to the migration emergency have often clashed with national authorities. One can view the desire of civil society to act despite the obstruction – or legal governmental procedures – of the national authorities, and the potential for a confrontation narrative between official governments and civil organizations.
Furthermore, some NGOs can be seen as elements bringing division in one society or being the hand of an external enemy. This view on NGOs proved to be particularly common in countries with populist majorities. It is the case of Hungary and the so-called Soros laws, which restrict the action of NGOs, making their members liable for imprisonment for supporting illegal migration. These laws represent an evident case in which the criminalization against NGOs has brought to tangible political consequences. The Hungarian incident is a particularly interesting case study as it sheds light on several aspects of the Hungarian government’s political agenda and on the role NGOs can play in the political discourse of an actor that chooses to target them with legal and political means.
These laws take their name from George Soros, a Hungarian-American philanthropist whose Open Society Foundations and Central European University were attacked by the government led by President Viktor Orban and marked as “foreign influence.” The activities funded by Soros have been accused of supporting illegal migration and threatening the values of the Hungarian society. The character of George Soros has become the ideal scapegoat for the Fidesz electorate along with the European Union (it is worth remembering the slogan “Stop Brussels”), other NGOs and migrants. The Fidesz party has led a campaign that was strongly based on the identification of one or more enemies of the people, an ideological aspect that is quite common in many populist parties.
Furthermore, by criminalising NGOs, the Hungarian government could pursue several goals. Firstly, it was able to send a clear political message to external political and civil actors that might want to interfere with the domestic affairs of Hungary. The message was a clear provocation to the EU, whose members have then responded in several occasions. Secondly, it highlighted the traits of what Orban has proudly defined as the illiberal democracy he rules. Additionally, the Hungarian government gained the sympathy of like-minded political voices that have since then drawn inspiration from the Hungarian case and have often used a similar tone against NGOs. It is the case of Italy’s Matteo Salvini and the Sea Watch 3 controversy in 2018. In this case, the NGO, and particularly the German captain of a rescue ship, were legally prosecuted and even vilified in the political debate and on social media.
Geopolitical goals: NGOs as a threat
When it comes to geopolitical settings, the situation does not differ too much from the way NGOs can be perceived and targeted by one geopolitical actor or another. The recent Flotilla controversy represents a case whose evidence can help to understand not only how NGOs can be an obstacle or a threat for a country involved in a military conflict, but also on the measures such a country can choose to employ to defend its geopolitical interests, and the external reactions that can be triggered.
The Flotilla was without a doubt a highly significant movement that underlined the potential role of civil society organizations. While the crew members have gained sympathy by many European observers, many Israeli officials have portrayed it as a risky interference, potentially linked to Hamas. Legally, Israel justified the interception by employing the San Remo Manual, while the Flotilla supporters relied on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and some provisions of the San Remo Manual. Beyond the legal means used to target a civil movement – and by depicting NGOs as organizations funded by terrorist groups- and the treatment reserved to some crew members and the subsequent fallout with many European countries, it is possible to view the potential for conflict that can be triggered by NGOs’ actions and how governments can view them as potentially criminal organizations and portray them as such in their political narrative. Once more, one can see how NGOs can be viewed as an external and hostile hand that aims to interfere with the geopolitical goals of a country.
Russia is the stage for many cases in which NGOs have been antagonised and legally targeted by the government. The accusations include once again foreign influence, national security threats, threatening moral values and attempts to destabilize the government. The Kremlin’s responses have been harsh. Since 2005, NGOs -particularly foreign-funded ones- have been subject to harsh legal restrictions, strict registration requirements and state control. The 2012 “foreign agent law” was the concrete realisation of the vilification of such organisations in Russia. This law has been largely employed after the invasion of Ukraine to target voices (NGOs, journalists and others) opposing the conflict. Here one can view how NGOs can be perceived as tools employed by geopolitical opponents and hostile countries. This “foreign agent” scenario has also been described in other countries such as Georgia, Belarus, Slovakia and Serbia.
NGOs can be seen as a threat for a country whose geopolitical interests include internal cohesion against an external element, the military occupation of an area, a military conflict whose law infringements or collateral damages are to be kept hidden from domestic and international public opinion. Furthermore, NGOs have been targeted in countries where a new regime has chosen to persecute them because of moral or religious reasons. It was the case of Afghan women being forbidden to work in NGOs in their country, after the Taliban has retaken power of the country in 2020.
Conclusion
Taking a comprehensive view on the criminalization of NGOs, this phenomenon can occur both in a country’s domestic political discourse and in broader geopolitical contexts involving multiple countries and actors. NGOs can be a source of concern for a government or political actor as they challenge their status and reveal misdoings, address neglected aspects or directly attack institutions and politicians with reports, awareness campaigns and other actions. NGOs can also obstruct the geopolitical agenda of a country and be perceived as a dangerous presence that might undermine the national security or a country’s internal stability. The increasing criminalization of NGOs in one environment can reflect several evolving trends and have many consequences. It can reflect the rising polarization in a country or conflict and it can also reveal a legal or humanitarian degeneration in a conflict. Furthermore, this trend could lead to a gap between governments and civil society, an increasing hostility from civil society actors and democratic plurality. At the international level, it could lead to an erosion of global solidarity initiatives and a weakening of international civil cooperation. Considering the current disruptions of taken for granted certitudes and the rapid transformation of the established world order, ensuring their legitimacy will be a core challenge for NGOs to fulfill their moral and social functions.
Open-Ended Questions for Further Reflection
1. Will NGOs continue being ideal scapegoats for political reasons?
2. Are NGOs potential political weapons?
3. Why are NGOs becoming more or less popular in different countries?
For further reading
Boin, A., Hart, P. ’t, & McConnell, A. (2009). Crisis exploitation: Political and policy impacts of framing contests. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(1), 81–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760802453221 
Srinivas, N. (2023). Against NGOs: A critical introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Steffek, J., & Hahn, K. (Eds.). (2010). Evaluating transnational NGOs: Legitimacy, accountability, representation. Palgrave Macmillan.
