Non-profit organizations and transparency: those who are afraid have something to hide

In the public space, a debate has rekindled that is actually as old as democracy itself: should the influence of money on public affairs be transparent or should it remain hidden behind noble slogans? The debate over the regulation of nonprofits, especially those with foreign funding, reveals a deeper problem—the clash between accountability and unchecked power.

It is remarkable how quickly a section of the public debate resorts to dramatic claims of "threat to democracy" as soon as a proposal for greater transparency appears. As if the very requirement to disclose funding is an attack on freedom. In fact, it's the exact opposite.

Democracy is not threatened by transparency. Democracy is threatened by hidden influence.

Non-profit organizations play an important role. No sane person disputes that. They are part of civil society, enter public debate, influence policy, participate in the creation of legislation, draw public funds and act as moral authorities. This is precisely why they cannot stand outside the rules that apply to all other actors in the public space.

Anyone who wants to influence public events must bear public scrutiny.

This is not an oppressive thought. This is the basic principle of a democratic state.

It is absolutely essential that the proposed measures do not prohibit the activities of non-profit organizations. They do not deprive anyone of the right to associate, express opinions or promote public interests. All they ask for is transparency – that is, information about where the funds come from that make this activity possible.

And here we come to the crux of the problem.

If an organization is truly independent, honest and complies with the law, why should it have a problem disclosing its funding? What exactly is so dangerous about transparency?

The answer is unpleasant but obvious: transparency is only a problem for those with something to hide.

Nonprofits that are "clean" have and don't need to hide anything. On the contrary, transparency strengthens their credibility, legitimacy and public support. It opens up space for trust, not suspicion.

On the other hand, there is a real risk that cannot be ignored. The non-profit sector can be – and in some cases is – misused as a tool for:

covert financing of political activities, influence operations from abroad, circumvention of rules for political entities, and in extreme cases, money laundering.

Pretending that these risks do not exist is not a defense of democracy. It is her resignation.

It should also be noted that a significant part of the non-profit sector manages public funds. That means with citizens' money. And here the debate should be even easier.

Whoever handles public money is subject to public scrutiny.

This principle is not disputed by the state, municipalities or private companies drawing subsidies. Why should the non-profit sector be an exception?

The argument that transparency will lead to "restriction of democracy" thus seems more like an inversion of reality. In fact, the absence of transparency would do the exact opposite — opening up space for unchecked influence that is inherently undemocratic.

Democracy is not only about freedom. It's also about accountability.

Without responsibility, freedom turns into privilege without control. And this is precisely the state of affairs against which the modern rule of law must defend itself.

Of course, any law can be poorly written. Any tool can be misused. Therefore, it is essential to insist on the precise definition of terms, the proportionality of measures and the existence of judicial review. This is a legitimate and necessary debate.

But to reject the very principle of transparency as such is to reject the basic building block of a democratic system.

This is not really a debate between democracy and regulation. It is a dispute between transparency and non-transparency.

And in this dispute, the position should be clear.

If we want to protect democracy, we must protect its integrity. And the integrity of public space starts with knowing who is funding it and to what end.

Transparency is not a threat. Transparency is light.

And whoever is afraid of light should explain why.