editorial partner Liberte! Friedrich Naumann Foundation

Civic Environment Report 2026: Georgia

Hostile

Since late 2024, Georgian civil society has faced steadily mounting pressure from the Georgian Dream government. A series of laws modelled on Russia’s “foreign agents” framework now forces foreign-funded organisations to register, and since 2025 they need prior government consent to receive foreign grants. Meanwhile, state money has been steered towards loyal organisations. The authorities have frozen the bank accounts of watchdog groups, demanded donor and staff data, and publicly branded critics as agents of hostile foreign interests. Established organisations have shut down as a result, and only about a third of regional community groups active in 2024 were still operating a year later. Taking part in civic life has also become risky. Protesters face heavy fines, up to 60 days’ detention and now criminal charges.

Standard Score Rating
Cluster A — Institutional and Political Environment and Narratives of CSOs 1.2 Restrictive cluster average
A1 Equal treatment 1 Restrictive
A2 Political recognition as partners 1 Restrictive
A3 Refrained authorities from smearing 1 Restrictive
A4 No weaponization of state powers and good governance principles 1 Restrictive
A5 Transparent and open public institutions 2 Restrictive leaning
Cluster B — Legal and Financial Framework for CSOs 1.4 Restrictive cluster average
B1 Free establishment and operation 2 Restrictive leaning
B2 CSOs enjoy a safe space and protection from arbitrariness 1 Restrictive
B3 Liberality of resourcing 1 Restrictive
B4 Enabling fiscal environment 2 Restrictive leaning
B5 Free expressions of criticism 1 Restrictive
Cluster C — Public Engagement and Perceptions towards the Work of CSOs 1.6 Restrictive leaning cluster average
C1 Citizens' trust 2 Restrictive leaning
C2 Pluralistic presentation in media 2 Restrictive leaning
C3 Free engagement 1 Restrictive
C4 CSOs embedded in communities 2 Restrictive leaning
C5 Freedom of assembly 1 Restrictive
Cluster D — CSOs as Policy Makers 1 Restrictive cluster average
D1 Right to participate in decision-making including in the policy cycle 1 Restrictive
D2 Timely consultations and equal participation 1 Restrictive
D3 Policies encourage cooperation with CSOs 1 Restrictive
D4 Free advocacy and watchdogging 1 Restrictive
D5 Government listens 1 Restrictive
Composite index (average of cluster scores) 1.3 between restrictive and restrictive leaning