The sustainability of illiberalism hinges on the adeptness of authoritarian regimes to monitor, subvert, and quash dissenting voices—both at home and abroad—while advancing their illiberal governance model thanks to a facade of political stability and social progress. To accomplish this, autocratic powers have deployed a sophisticated array of strategies and instruments.This includes the creation or co-optation and control of civil society organizations (CSOs) known as government-organized nongovernmental organizations (GONGOs). These entities mimic grassroots activism but are overseen by the government and serve the regime’s interests.
They have been actively used in the foreign policy arsenal of authoritarian regimes. As scholar Christopher Walker describes with the concept of “sharp power,” one way these entities undermine democratic institutions is by infiltrating international organizations that champion human rights and democracy, such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, former communist states have increasingly used the OSCE to secure international legitimacy. At the same time, other OSCE participants have increasingly called out human rights abuses in authoritarian states. The latter have deployed GONGOs to whitewash their reputations, disseminate disinformation to feign a commitment to democracy and human rights, silence independent civil society organizations and activists, challenge the authority of international organizations, and push for reinterpretation of human rights standards.
This memo, based on an e-book, analyzes the activity of GONGOs at the OSCE, their role in undermining universal human rights principles, and the need for the international community to recognize and confront the challenges they pose to the integrity of international forums as spaces for genuine civil society engagement.
Identifying GONGOs and Their Use amid Rising Global Authoritarianism
Authoritarian regimes have a dual strategy of suppressing independent organizations involved in public discourse and cultivating compliant civil society networks. While not a novel concept—with historical antecedents dating back to the Soviet era—GONGOs have proliferated particularly over the past two decades. These entities, which often receive political, logistical, and financial support from their government and government agencies, benefit from privileges that shield them from the stringent administrative regulations that independent organizations are forced to grapple with, such as complex registration processes and political repression.
Distinguishing NGOs from GONGOs is a difficult and dynamic task. The fact of receiving funding from a government is not necessarily the best indicator; many reputable institutions, such as the National Endowment for Democracy and the United States Institute of Peace, have operated autonomously to advance democracy and human rights across the globe while receiving government support. Meanwhile, the classification of a CSO can change based on personnel, funding, and leadership, which makes it sometimes challenging to distinguish between authentic NGOs and GONGOs, especially in authoritarian contexts. Government-organized nongovernmental organizations can have diverse roles, from replicating state rhetoric to contributing to social and economic projects, and their relationships with governments can shift over time. The key indicator of GONGO status is working under the control of a government to promote specific illiberal governance goals.
Domestically, GONGOs frequently operate in spheres that are deemed to be less sensitive to political regimes, such as education, health care, and women’s rights. To preserve their privileged position and avoid persecution, they align closely with official policies and refrain from critiquing them, collaborate with the political establishment, and practice self-censorship. Some skillfully co-opt nascent social groups and secure foreign funding by positioning themselves as pivotal contributors in their spheres of operation.
Abroad, GONGOs have become increasingly active on the international stage. Chinese GONGOs, for instance, have become prominent at Universal Periodic Review sessions of the UN Human Rights Council, supporting Beijing’s official narrative and lobbying against independent activists critical of China’s human rights record. Similarly, at OSCE events like the Human Dimension Implementation Meeting (HDIM), Warsaw Human Dimension Conference (WHDC), and the Supplementary Human Dimension Meetings (SHDMs), GONGOs have served as tools to promote authoritarian states’ propaganda. The 10-day HDIM was launched in 1993 and has taken place annually in Warsaw; since 2022, it has been organized as the WHDC under the auspices of the OSCE chairpersonship after Russia blocked the HDIM. All these events have provided a critical space for dialogue among the 57 participating states and civil society organizations to review the implementation of the full spectrum of OSCE human rights commitments, including democratic governance, elections, minority rights, rule of law, freedom of expression and media, freedom of religion, tolerance and nondiscrimination, combating human trafficking, gender equality, migration, and international humanitarian law.
Government-organized nongovernmental organizations have exhibited varying levels of presence and engagement at OSCE meetings. Some have been very vocal, delivering statements in many sessions, while others have adopted a more reserved demeanor. The visibility of GONGOs also has varied significantly by state: Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan have had a conspicuous GONGO presence, in contrast to Turkmenistan’s more low-profile approach. The level of GONGO participation has evolved over time, shaped both by international and by local developments. For example, the number of Armenian GONGOs declined considerably after Armenia’s 2018 Velvet Revolution. Another example: No Uzbekistani GONGOs were visible during the 2018 and 2019 HDIM sessions, but the worsening human rights situation in Uzbekistan and subsequent international criticism appears to have spurred a significant mobilization of these organizations in 2023 and 2024.
Taking into account the multidimensionality of GONGOs, I seek to scrutinize these organizations as mouthpieces or tools of authoritarian regimes that wield disinformation to craft a favorable or idealized national image (despite documented, widespread violations of OSCE commitments), dismiss criticism, attempt to discredit independent NGOs and individuals contesting their government’s narrative, and challenge the OSCE’s mandate and universal human rights standards. The aim is to shed light on their function as cogs in the machinery of the authoritarian state, regardless of their funding sources or formal ties to the state, that “sustain a dominant discourse that not only legitimizes the existing regime but also renders political alternatives both politically and discursively implausible.”
GONGO Promoting ‘Virtual Politics’
Government-organized nongovernmental organizations play a central role in promoting “virtual politics,” a term coined by Andrew Wilson to describe the creation of an illusion of the democratic process in post-Soviet political systems through sophisticated techniques that mimic democracy, where entire political parties and opposition figures, without substance or genuine political power, are fabricated. Claiming to voice the collective views of their population, GONGOs portray their states as paragons of human rights, repeatedly declaring that their constitutional and legal frameworks align with international standards and obligations. Additionally, they utilize rhetorical devices, such as hyperbolic language, and cite unsubstantiated figures to highlight their state’s supposed openness and diversity of media and civil society.
Besides painting a rosy picture, GONGOs have assumed a key role in countering criticism directed at their government by independent NGOs and other OSCE states through blatant denial, even concerning widely reported mass repression, for example, as Uzbekistani GONGOs did concerning events in the Karakalpakstan region in 2022. They rationalize or relativize restrictions that are intended to clamp down on independent activity under the guise of legal stipulations or prevailing economic conditions. For example, even though Tajikistan is today considered one of the most repressive governments in terms of freedom of expression, Tajikistani GONGOs have justified the forced closure of numerous newspapers by attributing it to competition with online media. Additionally, GONGOs combine disinformation with “whataboutism” to deflect from their governments’ authoritarian practices, alluding to purportedly analogous and unverified conduct by other OSCE member states, particularly those levying criticism. Finally, GONGOs can become attack dogs, vilifying independent activists, journalists, and real opposition figures by accusing them of being corrupt, criminals, or terrorists. They thus seek, purportedly in the name of civil society, to bolster claims that their official national delegations might otherwise find difficult to present credibly.
GONGOs Disrupting Meetings and Challenging Universal Human Rights
Government-organized nongovernmental organizations have attempted to disrupt the organization and proceedings of OSCE meetings. Their proliferation has enabled them to utilize the limited speaking slots available during working sessions to use up time. This strategy is further manifested in GONGOs’ making off-topic statements during sessions, which often requires intervention by moderators. Verbal abuse of independent NGOs is another disturbing page in the GONGO playbook, prompting moderators to call for civility. Moreover, GONGOs have repeatedly advocated for the implementation of stringent registration systems to scrutinize or curtail the participation of regime opponents and independent NGOs, thereby posing a covert threat to the very ethos of the OSCE as a forum of inclusivity and freedom of expression.
Government-organized nongovernmental organizations amplify the rhetoric of authoritarian leaders who seek to recast internationally accepted human rights and democratic principles as alien constructs that, as they see it, are ill suited to the cultural and historical legacy of their states and societies. This viewpoint, echoing the sentiments voiced by leaders like Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, proclaims the obsolescence of liberalism and frames the advocacy of democracy and human rights by Western entities as interference in sovereign affairs. At the OSCE, GONGOs have actively attempted to diminish the value of freedom of expression, portraying it as an outdated and even hazardous notion that demands reevaluation. They have disparaged it as “European notions of freedom of expression” that fosters “the propagation of hatred and intolerance” and suggested that the current paradigm allows human rights defenders to champion unrestrained speech, heedless of potential negative repercussions. Branding opposition movements and independent media as disseminators of “fake news” that purportedly incite “hatred, violence, violent regime change, and all forms of provocation,” GONGOs have called for a reexamination of the term “journalist,” which they allege is ill defined across the OSCE. They have also been instrumental in echoing the rationale for state policies curtailing the right to freedom of association and assembly, portraying such restrictions as measures vital for national stability and security.
Exposing GONGOs and Protecting the Integrity of International Organizations
An effective response to GONGOs requires a comprehensive and proactive strategy. It entails not only identifying GONGOs and their attempts to undermine the fundamental objectives of the OSCE, but also actively countering their disinformation campaigns and exposing their strategic abuse of language.
Simply banning GONGOs based on their actions and statements is not the solution. It would contravene the principles of free speech and expression that the OSCE espouses and violate OSCE regulations, which permit banning only “persons or organizations that resort to the use of violence or publicly endorse terrorism or the use of violence.” Furthermore, excluding GONGOs based on their political affiliations would breach the principles of openness, inclusivity, and nondiscrimination underlying the OSCE’s mandate and mark the first step down a slippery slope of exclusion based on views. It could set a dangerous precedent, which authoritarian regimes might exploit. Decisions on whether a particular CSO has fallen afoul of OSCE participation rules are made by the OSCE chairpersonship. An authoritarian chairperson could potentially disqualify independent NGOs it or its allied states do not like. This has precedent: During Kazakhstan’s 2010 chairpersonship, several NGOs were not allowed into the human dimension segment of the Review Conference because of objections from Turkmenistan and Russia.
To understand the motives and strategies employed by authoritarian governments and their affiliated GONGOs, critical analysis of authoritarian rhetoric is crucial. Democratic states ought to enhance collaboration among themselves and with independent CSOs to collect and share accurate and timely information about GONGOs. One practical step would be to form a dedicated working group of independent NGOs, experts, and researchers that are well versed in OSCE issues. This working group would scrutinize, fact-check, and analyze GONGOs’ statements and activities at OSCE events and investigate their operations and their government connections to expose them. It would uncover discrepancies between stated objectives and actual actions, challenging the facade of legitimacy these organizations project. It would present its findings on GONGO inner workings and manipulation tactics to international stakeholders, policymakers, and the public, informing them about GONGOs with which they may interact.
Conclusion
Government-organized nongovernmental organizations have emerged as a global force. Acting as proxies of autocratic regimes, they employ strategic messaging to corroborate and bolster their respective governments’ propaganda, which resonates with Hannah Arendt’s assertion that information received from several sources fuels its credibility. They can be seen as an iteration of Agitprop, the Department for Agitation and Propaganda under the Soviet regime, updated by harnessing the capabilities of modern communication platforms, like the internet and social media. The proliferation of GONGOs presents the illusion of a dynamic civil society. Meanwhile, inside authoritarian regimes, GONGOs encroach on the already-limited domain of independent civil society organizations, eroding the diversity and inclusivity vital to genuine, meaningful discourse.
The case of the OSCE underscores the imperative of addressing GONGOs as agents that promote the illiberal agendas of authoritarian states. The OSCE ought to take this threat seriously, lest its meetings be co-opted for political posturing and serve as an instrument of authoritarian governance, with its core values compromised. The instrumentalization of the OSCE by autocratic leaders, as exemplified by Nursultan Nazarbayev during Kazakhstan’s chairpersonship in 2010, underscores this risk. Kazakhstan tried to leverage its OSCE chairpersonship to bolster its global image with an extensive PR campaign and pledges of significant political reforms in line with OSCE standards. Regrettably, these promises largely remained unfulfilled—moreover, governance in Kazakhstan drifted further toward authoritarianism.
Maintaining the OSCE’s integrity, as well as its reputation as a bulwark of human rights and democracy, is essential. The body’s human rights review meetings represent rare international forums where independent CSOs, often marginalized within their own states, can share information, voice their concerns and problems, and engage in dialogue with government representatives from participating states.
Addressing the influence of GONGOs requires a concerted effort from democracies grounded in thorough research, informed policy, and a commitment to democratic principles and human rights. Through such a thoughtful approach that combats disinformation, encourages dialogue, and emphasizes the universality of human rights, the global community can properly tackle the challenges posed by GONGOs and secure the rights and freedoms of individuals globally.
Sebastien Peyrouse is the director of the Central Asia Program and a research professor at the Institute for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies (IERES) at the George Washington University. He specializes in Central Asia, in particular, religion, domestic issues, and relations with China and South Asia.
