Soft power ecosystem

In late autumn, when politicians are traditionally engaged in heated debates about budget issues, discussions surfaced on the agenda about whether the Society Integration Fund (SIF) should or should not be liquidated. At that time, the association “Civic Alliance” stated that such an initiative should be regarded as an attempt to weaken civil society and restrict democratic processes.

Summarizing data on the organizations and media financed by SIF over the last three years, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at the above conclusions. On the contrary, a completely opposite conclusion can be drawn: budget money is used to maintain an ecosystem in which people who are, one way or another, close to those in power come together, draw up regulations for their own projects and then allocate money to the associations they represent, in order to implement activities in programs that align with the values of the ruling parties. If these parties are distinctly liberal, then it turns out that the most active civil society is also liberal. Of course, you cannot lump everyone together, and there are also some organizations that are entirely neutral and deal, for example, with strengthening the Latgalian language, but in general a broad generalization is possible. Moreover, the organizations and projects most often supported are those that also include a political position and ideology not only on the scale of Latvia, but also on the European Union (EU) level. A large share of the money is financed by the EU directly through funds; for some programs specific responsible institutions are designated, but state co-financing is required, and there are also projects financed entirely from the budget, both for the media and for non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

A non-governmental, yet state-like sector

A paradox – for a number of associations SIF funding is the main source of income. Perhaps this is precisely why the head of the “Civic Alliance” Kristīne Zonberga expressed the view that without this funding “civil society” would be weakened and democracy restricted. In 2023 she stated on public media that there are about 30,000 non-governmental organizations in Latvia, but only around 1,000 are active and participate in decision-making at the state and municipal levels. However, as SIF data show, over three years only 136 have received any kind of state support.

It is logical that any activity requires financial resources. Thus, animal welfare associations collect donations, and business organizations collect membership fees. If the non-governmental sector is supported by the state, then, of course, the most active become those associations that receive this funding. At present, with the current government, a liberal direction and the green course are “in fashion”, and therefore the respective NGOs receive the largest sums. Meanwhile, those NGOs whose ideas are closer to conservative or simply different values than those of the government of the moment receive no funding. Many associations and media outlets challenge decisions on refusal of funding in court. For example, in 2023 the association Peripatos (the portal Telos) sued SIF, the company Dienas mediji is also in litigation with the organization, and among NGOs there are defenders of family values, such as the Latvian Large Families Association, the Association “Family” and others. All complain about the non-transparent procedure for the allocation of funding. The situation in which a few dozen “right” NGOs receive state funding but others do not, contrary to Zonberga’s claims, undermines democratic processes rather than strengthening them.

It is not clear why NGOs should subsist on state funding. Presumably, if all these organizations raised their funding from membership fees and donations, the picture of which NGOs are active and which are not would be completely different. Information included in SIF’s own reports shows that NGOs are not inactive; almost twice as many applicants submit project proposals as actually receive funding. Many associations obtain money under various programs, while others receive nothing at all. In any case, they are linked by addresses, officials, and family ties. There is no neutrality here.

How does the process work?

To understand how we arrive at the outcome described above, we must first understand how the process works.

SIF is considered a neutral organization under the direct supervision of the Prime Minister. Each year the SIF board approves regulations for various programs in which funding will be available. Broadly speaking, these can be divided into a Media Support branch and NGOs, where there are also different programs for different purposes: support for the diaspora, cohesion of minorities, support for the people of Ukraine, creation of a family-friendly environment, etc. However, the regulations, for example for media support, are not drafted by SIF, but by the Media Policy Consultative Council of the Ministry of Culture. In the NGO section, the regulations are drawn up with the help of such consultative councils as, for example, the Council for Implementation of the Cooperation Memorandum between NGOs and the Cabinet of Ministers, and then the “higher” SIF Board approves these regulations. Once the regulations have been approved, a call for proposals is announced, after which the submitted applications are evaluated by someone. Who is this “someone”? For example, this year SIF announced an open call for project applications under the NGO program “Program for the Promotion of Civic Participation to Support Diaspora NGOs’ Activities”, and the project applications were evaluated by a commission composed of one representative from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Smart Administration and Regional Development, the Diaspora Consultative Council, two representatives from the Council for Implementation of the Cooperation Memorandum between NGOs and the Cabinet of Ministers, and one representative from the SIF secretariat. Thus, a situation arises in which, essentially, representatives of the same organizations both review and draft the call regulations and ultimately evaluate the applications. Even if they are not the exact same individuals, the circle does not change. The data show that the organizations whose representatives are on these councils also receive the largest sums of money from SIF. Probably a coincidence… The same kind of coincidence is seen in the fact that the NGOs receiving the most money are registered at the same address.

They get paid for that, too!

Most of our readers probably did not know this, but it turns out they get paid for that, too! Namely, NGO representatives are paid by the state for participating, for example, in SIF board meetings, receiving remuneration for each meeting. In the case of the SIF Board, this is laid down in Article 32 of Cabinet Regulation No. 205 – each representative of the non-governmental sector receives 118.96 euros for participating in one meeting.

Inc. found this out quite by accident – because last Friday a meeting was held at the State Chancellery where it was planned to increase this payment to 201.76 euros per meeting, but that did not succeed.

Thus, a situation has been created in which representatives of the non-governmental sector, who receive salaries in their associations and come to SIF Board meetings to lobby for their interests and then receive funding from the state, also receive remuneration from the state for having come to the meeting to lobby for their interests.

As to whether NGO representatives are also paid for their participation in meetings of the “Council for Implementation of the NGO and Cabinet of Ministers Cooperation Memorandum”, there is no unanimity – an Inc. source says they are, but the Director of the State Chancellery is likewise unable to give a clear answer to this question: at first he says they are not, but later clarifies that he has asked the responsible staff to prepare a report, yet perhaps two people are indeed paid for tasks delegated by NGOs, and he sends this link, which shows that the situation is even stranger. Namely, the State had announced a tender to select an NGO that would organize the meetings of the “Memorandum Council” itself and carry out the secretariat functions. The target indicator is to ensure 11 Memorandum Council meetings per year. The contract was concluded with the already mentioned Latvian Civic Alliance, which receives 200,000 euros a year for this task, or 18,181 euros per meeting. Considering that the Memorandum Council meetings are held at the Cabinet of Ministers, where there is no need to pay for room rental, it must be acknowledged that organizing and minuting the meetings in one’s own interest turns out to be, to put it mildly, rather expensive.

However, some clarity is provided by the Deputy Chair of the Memorandum Council, Georgs Rubenis, who confirms that the remuneration for participation in meetings is about 60 euros per meeting (including taxes), although this remuneration was introduced only this year. We are saving…