Serbia: documented application of the same framework
Academic research base
Why do those in power ban some organizations, pressure others, and cooperate with some?
The government does not assess all organizations according to whether they are “civilian”, but according to what they can do. A group that provides social assistance, sports or cultural programs can be useful and politically harmless, so the government gives it space or money.
An organization that connects people from different backgrounds, collects independent data, defends the vulnerable or can quickly initiate public pressure is a greater risk. It can be banned, left without funding, exposed to inspections or forced to do only a narrow service job. The border changes: the humanitarian group becomes “political” as soon as it starts asking why help is needed and who is responsible. That is why the real test is how much the organization can independently determine the goal, money and public speech.
The government in Serbia does not treat every organization the same. A group that provides a useful service or does not have political demands can be financed and included in working groups; one that is important for legitimacy is trying to win over; an organization that monitors elections, detects abuses or links protests more often exposes to smears, inspections and other pressures. The choice of funds depends on how useful, popular, replaceable and able to organize others.
How the finding is separated in the matrix
Monitoring of the civil space records at the same time the cooperation of the state with a part of civil society and selective pressure on critical organizations, while studies of the relationship between the state and NGOs describe institutionalized, but often instrumental cooperation. OKO and FemPlatz now associate political selectivity with money: the declarative partnership with civil society does not follow equal access to financing, while privileged and inactive users can receive significant funds.
The government assesses the price first: cooperation is cheaper than conflict when an organization brings knowledge or legitimacy; pressure becomes more attractive when it can compromise control.
Yes different treatment and criteria of political sensitivity are seen across multiple sectors.
Financing or cooperation with the state does not prove control, just as inspection does not prove persecution. Equal criteria are needed, transparent trace of decision and comparison with similar organizations.
The border between the ‘service’ and the ‘political’ organization is not permanent. The government can change it, and the organizations adapt to survive and continue their work.
Works supporting this answer, with their evidence type and an explanation of how they relate to the claim.
review more research
Toepler, S., Zimmer, A., Fröhlich, C. i Obuch, K. (2020), „The Changing Space for NGOs: Civil Society in Authoritarian and Hybrid Regimes“, VOLUNTAS 31: 649–662.
- Contribution to this answer
- Toepler and co-authors show that the authoritarian government does not treat the entire civil society the same: organizations that make political demands can limit and suppress, while service providers and organizations that support regime messages can offer money, space and cooperation. Which organization will get the stick, and which carrot depends on what it does and how politically dangerous it is.
Analysis of the work of organizations in China
Spires, A. J. (2011), „Contingent Symbiosis and Civil Society in an Authoritarian State: Understanding the Survival of China’s Grassroots NGOs“, American Journal of Sociology 117(1): 1–45.
- Contribution to this answer
- Spires shows how even formally unregistered organizations can survive under authoritarian rule if they solve social problems, do not turn that work into democratic political demands and bring benefits to local officials without great political risk. Tolerance therefore does not have to mean freedom it lasts until both sides have a reason not to cross the unwritten border.
Explain how the system works
Teets, J. C. (2014), Civil Society under Authoritarianism: The China Model, Cambridge University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Teets shows how the Chinese government has learned through experience that civil society can be both useful and dangerous: organizations can provide services and improve public policies, but they can also organize a protest. That is why there is a “consultative authoritarianism” that tries to encourage useful participation, and limit the one that threatens political control.
review more research
Rutzen, D. (2015), „Authoritarianism Goes Global (II): Civil Society Under Assault“, Journal of Democracy 26(4): 28–39.
- Contribution to this answer
- Rutzen documents how the government can narrow the space of organizations without their open ban especially through foreign financing rules, registration and special statuses such as a “foreign agent”. Thus, the organization can formally continue to exist, while its practical cost of work is constantly increasing.
comparing several countries or cases
Schleutker, E. (2021), „Co-optation and Repression of Religion in Authoritarian Regimes“, Politics and Religion 14(2): 209–240.
- Contribution to this answer
- Schleutker shows the same double logic on religious communities: the government positively supports and includes some in the system and restricts others. The choice also depends on the ambitions and strength of the religious group itself and on how much the regime has the capabilities and reasons to control it.
Sources supporting the Serbia example, with the claim they support and their limitations.
Domestic NGO monitoring of civic space - Verified 21.08.2026
Građanske inicijative. 2025. Udruženja građana — sužavanje prostora za delovanje 2024. Beograd: Građanske inicijative.
Civic Initiatives. 2025. Citizens’ Associations narrowing the space for action 2024. Belgrade: Civic Initiatives.
- What the source records
- Based on the standardized regional matrix and bi-weekly reports, 234 cases of violations of fundamental rights and freedoms were registered, with an increase in physical and verbal attacks and other pressures compared to the previous year.
- Claim it supports
- Claim that the government chooses cooperation, co-optation or pressure towards the political importance, usefulness and organizational strength of the association.
- Source limitation
- The records include documented and reported cases, and not a representative rate of all incidents in Serbia, while the organization at the same time has a clear role of protecting the civil space.
Reviewed scientific work - Verified 21.08.2026
Fagan, Adam, i Natasha Wunsch. 2019. “Fostering Institutionalisation? The Impact of the EU Accession Process on State–Civil Society Relations in Serbia.” Acta Politica 54(4): 607–624. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-018-0093-1
- What the source records
- The work finds more formal channels of consultation, but limited actual institutionalization and poor opportunity for civil society to influence decisions.
- Claim it supports
- Claim that the government chooses cooperation, co-optation or pressure towards the political importance, usefulness and organizational strength of the association.
- Source limitation
- The focus is on EU consultations and selected organisations, not on the entire civil society or on events after 2017.
Domestic NGO Coalition semi-annual monitoring - Verified 21.08.2026
Koalicija prEUgovor. 2025. Alarm Report on Progress of Serbia in Cluster 1 – May 2025. Beograd: prEUgovor.
- What the source records
- The report documents the simultaneous concentration of power, institutional abuses, pressures on the judiciary, selective fight against corruption, media control and repression against critics, with very few reforms implemented.
- Claim it supports
- Claim that the government chooses cooperation, co-optation or pressure towards the political importance, usefulness and organizational strength of the association.
- Source limitation
- It is the semi-annual report of the coalition with a clear reform and advocacy role, so its evaluations should be checked through the above examples, documents and sources for each area.
Official international monitoring - Verified 21.08.2026
European Commission. 2025. Serbia 2025 Report. Commission Staff Working Document. Brussels: European Commission.
- What the source records
- The report notes weak election conditions, limited parliamentary scrutiny, strong political pressure on the judiciary and concerns that the president is in practice directing decision-making beyond the constitutional idea.
- Claim it supports
- Claim that the government chooses cooperation, co-optation or pressure towards the political importance, usefulness and organizational strength of the association.
- Source limitation
- The report is related to the EU accession process and describes a certain period; it does not represent a scientific causal study or a uniform assessment of the type of regime.
Domestic NGO and research media longitudinal analysis of the competition - Verified 21.08.2026
BIRN Srbija i Građanske inicijative. 2023. Javno o javnim konkursima: Pregled projektnog finansiranja u oblastima medija, civilnog društva, kulture i omladine u 2022. godini. Beograd: BIRN Srbija i Građanske inicijative.
BIRN Serbia and Civic Initiatives. 2023. Public about public competitions: Overview of project funding in the fields of media, civil society, culture and youth in 2022. Belgrade: BIRN Serbia and Civic Initiatives.
- What the source records
- Shows that cooperation and financing of civil society are not neutral when professional and critical organizations do not have the same approach as privileged users.
- Claim it supports
- Provides evidence for selective selection of organisations with which the state cooperates or funds.
- Source limitation
- The database and monitoring show patterns and risks; only the repetition of the user does not prove eligibility or abuse without an overview of the specific competition, decision and project results.
Domestic NGOs public finance analysis - Verified 21.08.2026
FemPlatz. 2024. Analiza javnih konkursa za podršku projektima udruženja usmerenih na promociju, zaštitu i unapređenje rodne ravnopravnosti i sprečavanje nasilja prema ženama objavljenih tokom 2023. Pančevo: FemPlatz.
FemPlatz. 2024. Analysis of public competitions for support to projects of associations aimed at promotion, protection and improvement of gender equality and prevention of violence against women published during 2023. Pančevo: FemPlatz.
- What the source records
- Shows that the strategies of women and women’s organizations are called partners, while the competition practice leaves them with a very small part of the funds.
- Claim it supports
- Supports selective cooperation: declarative recognition does not mean equal access to resources.
- Source limitation
- Desk analysis and four interviews accurately check the selected competitions, but do not prove that every funded association GONGO nor that every bad decision is politically motivated.
Is a relevant source missing? Send it to us.
Suggest a source or report an error in this answer →