Georgia is the most prominent case because of the mass protests against the ‘foreign influence’ law, which continued despite a police crackdown on demonstrators on the main street of the capital, attracting international media coverage. But strongman leaders in other countries have, less dramatically, pursued similar initiatives.
In December 2023, Hungary’s parliament passed a package of ‘sovereignty protection’ laws to curb foreign influence, which critics said could be used by Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s government to target dissenters.
Orban’s Fidesz party argued that the laws were necessary to stop opposition parties receiving foreign funding. They include the creation of a ‘sovereignty protection office’, a government authority that can gather information about people or organisations that receive money from outside Hungary.
The European Commission announced this month that it is taking Hungary to the EU’s Court of Justice, arguing that the ‘sovereignty protection’ laws breach some of the bloc’s fundamental rights and freedoms.
“The broad powers and discretion of the [sovereignty protection] office will affect a wide range of persons and entities, including civil society organisations, media outlets and journalists in a disproportionate manner,” it said.
In another EU member state, Bulgaria, pro-Russian right-wing party Revival has pushed for a ‘foreign agents’ law that would effectively sanction certain NGOs and media outlets that are funded from abroad, but without success so far. However, Revival’s rising popularity ahead of Bulgaria’s parliamentary elections on Sunday has increased concerns that the party might try again if it gains more representation in parliament.
A similar law was also proposed in Republika Srpska, the Serb-led entity in Bosnia and Herzegovina, sparking criticism that it would limit freedom of expression. The legislation was intended to restrict non-profit organisations from engaging in “political activities”, mandate their enrolment in a special registry and subject them to increased legal oversight. Under the law, the Republika Srpska government could declare them “agents of foreign influence”.
However, the law was then withdrawn in May, citing the need for further harmonisation with European standards, although this was not clearly explained.
Meanwhile, the EU has also been considering whether to adopt a ‘foreign agents directive’ to address political interference by countries like Russia intended to subvert democracy in Europe. Civil rights organisations were highly critical of the idea, arguing that it could curb freedom of speech and undermine the EU’s credibility as a champion of democratic values.
“Ironically, this directive it was made to control third-party influence, specifically Russian influence, but when you read the directive and some of the requirements, it is very similar to the law that was proposed in [Republika Srpska],” Ena Bavcic, lead researcher at BIRN’s Digital Rights Programme, said at the Media Freedom Rapid Response Summit.
A similar law was put on the parliamentary agenda for discussion in Turkey in May. The planned ‘agents of foreign influence’ law threatened prison sentences for people involved in producing propaganda for a foreign actor. This would represent a further blow to the freedom of the country’s embattled media, as well as to civil society in general, experts argue.
“It is clear that the pressure targeting media and civil society in Turkey has been escalating for over a decade. The survival of these sectors has been under severe threat for a long time,” Gurkan Ozturan, media freedom monitoring officer at the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, told BIRN.
The law was withdrawn following criticism, but then submitted to parliament again on October 18. This time, however, the proposal is back on the parliamentary agenda as part of a different legislative package.
“The unofficially labelled ‘agents of foreign influence’ law is now being taken into a legislative framework to officially criminalise the works of independent journalists or CSOs [civil society organisations] whenever they reveal major wrongs in society or governance,” Ozturan said.
“It will restrict the independent media and civil society even further, which is a very risky move when we consider it in the context of the wider process of democratisation,” he added.
Mark Dempsey, senior EU advocacy officer at UK-based media freedom organisation Article 19, said that some European parliamentarians have indulged illiberal tendencies among member states. He gave the example of Hungary and how it was tolerated by the powerful centre-right European People’s Party, EPP bloc in the European parliament when democratic backsliding started under Orban’s government in Budapest.
“I think we have a weak leadership at the centre of Europe. We have a parliament leaning to the right and we have an EPP party which has a history, in order to secure its power base and its numbers in the parliament, of allowing this gradual backsliding,” Dempsey told BIRN.
But in the long run, the adoption of laws labelling NGOs and independent media ‘foreign agents’ can damage EU aspirant countries’ hopes of joining the European bloc – as the example of Georgia has highlighted.
Campaign groups in these countries should do more to highlight what this means for the future, Dempsey urged: “I think in accession countries, there has to be mobilising on the ground among civil society organisations about what a future in Europe means versus what a future outside of Europe means.”