Serbia: documented application of the same framework
Academic research base
How can government-controlled organizations appear to represent citizens?
The government can establish, finance or privilege an organization bearing the name of a civic initiative, professional association or independent movement. Such a group receives media space, participates in public debates and says that the government listens to society, while at the same time suppressing authentic organizations that ask unpleasant questions.
Members do not all have to be dishonest; the organization can also do useful work, but its border becomes visible when it should oppose the financier or protect critics. State funding in itself is not proof of control and many independent groups legitimately use public money. One should look at who chooses the leadership, whether the sources and criteria are public, whether the organization can change its attitude and what happens to it when it publishes a finding that the authorities do not suit.
The organization may have the name of an association of citizens, an expert council or an initiative, and that its real job is to confirm the attitude of the authorities and attack independent critics. In Serbia, reports on the capture of the state and the civic space appear pro-government organizations and so-called GONGO actors who get access, money or media visibility, so they create the impression that 'civil society' supports the decision. A citizen can hardly see who chooses the leadership and the work.
How the finding is separated in the matrix
BTI, Civic Initiatives and prEUgovor record the appearance and privileged treatment of pro-government organizations, especially in public debates and campaigns against critical civil society. OKO documents GONGO and phantom organizations, while FemPlatz provides verifiable indicators such as inactivity, lack of financial trace and lack of results; no indicator alone is sufficient for the GONGO label.
Such an organization gives the authorities two benefits: it imitates independent support and takes up space, money or a seat at the table that could otherwise be gained by a really independent group.
To a significant extent the form and individual actors are documented, but the dependence of each organization must be proven separately.
Neither the inactivity of the association, nor the support of the government, nor the state financing in itself prove GONGO status. It is necessary to merge financial traces, personnel connections, coordinated behavior, privileged access and actual results of work.
State money does not automatically prove that the government controls the organization. It is important who makes the decisions, how much funding is public and what happens after the criticism.
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 how selective policy towards civil society changes what the public sees as a “civil society” in general: regime-loyal organizations and service providers can gain support and access to power, while politically demanding organizations are suppressed. Thus, public space can be full of organizations, and the most independent voices have the least space.
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 government can open real channels of consultations with citizens and organizations, and still maintain control over the borders of this participation. The organization can therefore authentically convey some of the needs of citizens, but without being able to decide for itself which political borders it can cross.
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 is more important here as a fence: an organization that works under authoritarian rule is not an automatic regime organization. Its Chinese grassroots NGOs can be really independent and useful to citizens, but they survive until they turn their actions into open democratic demands. It is only from the fact that the state suffers them that we can not conclude that they are completely free or that they are “false voice of citizens”.
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 shows how limiting funding and registration can change which organizations can speak out. His work is not about organizations that the government has made, but explains how a repressive environment can leave more space for those who are more willing to accept it.
research in universities
Yan, X. (2014), „Engineering Stability: Authoritarian Political Control over University Students in Post-Deng China“, China Quarterly 218: 493–513.
- Contribution to this answer
- Yan shows how the Chinese state builds the entire institutional infrastructure within the university to produce political obedience and control student space. It is a useful example that formal structures of student participation exist within a system designed for political control but the work is not primarily the study of organizations that present themselves as independent “voice students”.
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
- The claim that pro-government organizations can imitate independent support and occupy the financial and institutional space of a real civil society.
- 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.
International expert report - Verified 21.08.2026
Bertelsmann Stiftung. 2026. BTI 2026 Serbia Country Report. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
Bertelsmann Stiftung. 2026. BTI 2026 Serbia Country Report. Gtersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
- What the source records
- For the first time, BTI places Serbia in a moderate autocracy and assesses that the president and the SNS dominate the government, parliament and judiciary despite the limited constitutional role of the president.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that pro-government organizations can imitate independent support and occupy the financial and institutional space of a real civil society.
- Source limitation
- It is a periodic expert assessment with its own methodology, not a peer-reviewed work that isolates a single cause.
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
- The claim that pro-government organizations can imitate independent support and occupy the financial and institutional space of a real civil society.
- 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.
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
- The claim that pro-government organizations can imitate independent support and occupy the financial and institutional space of a real civil society.
- Source limitation
- The focus is on EU consultations and selected organisations, not on the entire civil society or on events after 2017.
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
- Document GONGO and phantom organizations using financial, registration and field indicators.
- Claim it supports
- Shows how the formal status of the association can create the appearance of a civic voice and access to public money without real work.
- 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
- Record the financing of associations without activities in the previous year and very weak public trace of a part of the projects.
- Claim it supports
- Provides criteria for recognizing apparent civilian work, along with the fence that inactivity does not prove GONGO status itself.
- 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 →