Why the growing number of foreign agent laws around the world is bad for democracy

The ruling party of Georgia, a former Soviet state in the Caucasus region, bowed to pressure in early March after days of mass protests and clashes between protesters and police and did not move forward with its proposed laws on foreign agents . But when it comes to laws like this one that target foreign-funded media and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the uproar and media attention surrounding Georgia’s initiative and withdrawal of its law is one The big trend is not going to hide.

In the last decade or more, such laws have come into effect in many countries of the world. China, India, Cambodia, Australia and Uganda are among the many countries that have foreign agent laws on their statute books. The European Union is creating its own register of foreign agents, Politico newspaper reported days after Georgia’s withdrawal of the draft laws. The impetus for the adoption of these laws in recent years stems from rising international tensions and concerns of national authorities about foreign influence on domestic affairs and public opinion.

The interpretation and application of ‘foreign agent’ laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But they all require registration and marking of organizations with foreign funding or ‘influence’. In many cases, their activities are unreasonably curtailed. From my experience working with NGOs that have been labeled as foreign agents, such laws are prone to be used as tools against organizations that are working for human rights and social assistance or government agencies. Keeping an eye on the transparency of

Any organization that is involved in international activities in any way and is viewed by a country’s government as an organization that influences domestic policies or public perceptions runs the risk of being labeled a foreign agent. After this law came into force in Georgia, NGOs and media organizations receiving more than 20 percent of their grants from abroad were required to register in a special register as ‘agents of foreign influence’. He was required to file an annual financial statement or face a fine of $9,500.

Georgia’s drafters compared it to the US Foreign Agent Registration Act or (Foreign Agent Registration Act … FARA). But critics argued it was a copycat of Russia’s more repressive foreign agent law. Human rights organizations said the Russian law allows the Kremlin to stifle the work of NGOs and independent media and harass dissident citizens.

Russia enacted its foreign agent law in 2012 and since then I have seen officials resort to vague legal concepts such as ‘political activity’, ‘foreign financing’ and ‘foreign influence’ to label an NGO as a foreign agent. Let’s take These vague legal concepts allow authorities and courts to interpret the law in a very broad way and decide arbitrarily who is a foreign agent and who is not.

Both Russia and Georgia referred to Fara when drafting their foreign agent laws. However there is a fundamental difference between their laws and Fara. In Russia’s law and Georgia’s version of the law that has now been withdrawn, a ‘foreign agent’ does not need to perform activities on behalf of a foreign government, political party, business or individual. For example, the use of the words ‘foreign agent’ and ‘agent with foreign influence’ is wrong from the legal point of view.

There is also no need to prove the activity of the agency. Nevertheless, the legal consequences for those labeled ‘foreign agents’ are very real. In Russia, these organizations cannot conduct educational activities in public schools, hold public events, or produce or distribute materials for children. And government officials can cancel their programs and activities, even if they don’t violate the law.

In other countries too, such laws violate human rights and freedoms. Chinese law requires NGOs to obtain permission from the government for their activities and to register with security authorities. In the year 2022, international human rights organizations including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch appealed to the Government of India to stop the implementation of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) on civil society. They alleged that this law was being used to harass the reputed local NGO ‘Centre for Promotion of Social Concerns’.

Indian authorities accused the organization of ‘representing India’s human rights in a negative light and tarnishing India’s image’ and its office was searched and documents were seized. In addition to these legal consequences for all NGOs, government action against foreign agents can lead to distrust among citizens of important NGOs and other organizations that protect human rights and provide public services.

Disclaimer:IndiaTheNews has not edited this news. This news has been published from PTI-language feed.

---

---