As the public consultation period ended on Wednesday, April 14th, the European Union now begins the next phase of introducing its Defense of Democracy package, aimed at making foreign attempts to influence European decision-making more transparent. Many NGOs, however, liken Brussels to Moscow in their criticism of the directive.
The Defense of Democracy package was first announced by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in October 2022, as a set of instruments that purport to “reinforce democracy and [the] integrity of elections.” The directive is intended to serve as an integral component of the 2020 European Democracy Action Plan, which contains a wide array of legislation in three key areas (election integrity, media pluralism, and counter-disinformation) most of which is still in development—including the much-debated directives on the electoral right of ‘mobile citizens’, meaning migrants and asylum seekers.
Whereas the notion of allowing ‘mobile’ EU citizens to vote is being primarily (and understandably) challenged from the political Right, the Defense of Democracy package represents one of the rare occasions on which the European Commission managed to anger the Left instead. As we wrote last month, the largest and mostly leftist NGOs, who were initially hailing the idea of introducing more transparency into European politics, were suddenly taken aback upon learning that they, too, would be subject to the EU’s new ‘foreign agents law’.
So, what is in the package? According to the Commission, the legislation
seeks to close possible loopholes that could be used by covert foreign actors to interfere in EU’s democracy and to better prepare all concerned – institutions and citizens – to identify and face this threat … [and] to promote institutional trust and democratic values in the EU and protect the EU democratic sphere from covert interference in democratic processes, [by] enhancing transparency and accountability.
In practice, what this word salad tries to imply is that the main component of the package will be a law similar to the U.S.’ Foreign Agents Registration Act, forcing NGOs, consultancies, and foundations to report their foreign funding and revenues. Back when it was announced, it was generally believed that it would target entities that are directly tied to European political parties—and therefore would be crucial in combating right-wing populism, according to 14 major NGOs who signed a letter welcoming it.
However, as was revealed last month, it will only look for foreign-funded organizations and everyone will be subject to it in the same way. This will include the biggest players in Brussels, many of which are part of global networks or are otherwise funded from abroad, mainly from the United States. Ironically enough, the loudest critics of the package are the NGOs that have been promoting transparency and democracy.
For the past month, many of the most prominent Brussels-based NGOs have been calling for the removal or complete overhaul of the directive. Despite being among the signatories of the letter that welcomed the initial announcement, both the European Partnership for Democracy and Transparency International EU have now spoken out against the Defense of Democracy package.
According to the Partnership for Democracy, by focusing on foreign interference, the law would ignore internal threats to democracy while also providing “illiberal forces with the opportunity to weaponize the proposal” by stigmatizing and discriminating against civil society organizations. Transparency International, furthermore, likened the law to the now “antiquated” U.S. legislation and Russia’s widely rebuked foreign agents law, while calling for replacing it with a broader “lobby act” to cover actors with domestic funding as well.
What’s more, the same NGOs fear that the final version of the Defense of Democracy package will impose even harsher transparency rules after the Commission hands it over to the Parliament for amendments. According to them, the European People’s Party and the other conservative parliamentary groups have been engaging in an “anti-NGO narrative” lately, especially since Qatargate, which is bound to influence the outcome of the legislation.
After the representatives of the NGOs pointed out that the Defense of Democracy is awfully similar to not only the Russian foreign agents law but other comparable legislations in Hungary and Georgia, for example—which were harshly condemned by the EU—Wojtek Talko, a representative of the Commission told them on Wednesday, April 12th, that they are aware but this is going to be different, urging them “not to focus on the worst-case scenario.”
