Author: Veronica Charalambous

In light of the recent racist and Islamophobic demonstrations in the United Kingdom, as well as the solidarity counter-protests organized by anti-racist initiatives such as Stand Up To Racism under slogans such as “Refugees Welcome,” it has become evident that the war against migration is intensifying. The rise of far-right political forces in many countries is fueling a public discourse that portrays migration as a threat and migrants as a problem to be managed.

Within this climate, a dangerous distinction is being constructed between “good” and “bad” migration. The “good” migrant is often portrayed as white, European, and culturally familiar. In contrast, the “bad” migrant is associated with people from Africa, the Middle East, or other regions of the Global South. As a result, acceptance of migration is no longer based on recognition of shared human dignity, but rather on criteria such as race, origin, and economic utility.

The Western world has assumed the role of determining what constitutes “proper” or “legal” migration, imposing strict conditions on who is entitled to move and under what circumstances. In her book “The Ungrateful Refugee”, Dina Nayeri describes how refugees are constantly required to prove that they deserve protection, that the reasons for their displacement are sufficiently compelling, and that they are grateful to the countries that receive them. Rather than being treated as individuals with fundamental rights, they are often reduced to petitioners seeking recognition of their very existence.

The reasons that compel a person to leave their home, family, and homeland require little explanation. Whether driven by war, political persecution, extreme poverty, environmental disasters, or a lack of prospects, migration is almost always a difficult and painful decision. Yet a person’s need to seek safety, dignity, and better living conditions should not require constant justification, particularly before states and international structures that have often contributed, historically or economically, to creating the very conditions from which these individuals are trying to escape.

In his work “Illegal Immigration as Resistance to Global Poverty”, Gwilym David Blunt argues that irregular migration can be understood as a form of resistance to a global system that produces and perpetuates inequality and poverty. According to this perspective, migration is not merely an act of survival but also a claim to self-determination. Blunt further emphasizes that wealthy states have a responsibility not to support or benefit from international institutions that contribute to systematic human rights violations.

The distinction between “legal” and “irregular” migrants is often conflated with a moral distinction between “good” and “bad” people. However, the fact that someone was unable to follow official migration procedures does not mean that their reasons for migrating are any less legitimate. In most cases, those who move without the necessary documentation would choose a safe and legal route if one were genuinely available. Marginalizing people because they lacked the means or opportunities to migrate legally is a deeply hypocritical stance in a world where millions of people have been, are, or will become migrants at some point in their lives.

Migration has been a defining feature of human history throughout the ages. Societies, cities, cultures, civilizations, and everyday lives have been shaped through population movements, exchanges of ideas, and interactions between diverse communities. Multiculturalism does not weaken societies. It enriches them. Fears about the “erosion” of culture or threats to national identity are often rooted more in political narratives than in empirical reality. Even when social challenges emerge, the protection of an abstract notion of national purity cannot outweigh the fundamental rights of people seeking safety, freedom, and a dignified life.

Recognizing migration as a fundamental human freedom does not imply the abolition of borders or the absence of migration management policies. It does, however, require that every discussion about migration begin with a basic principle: no human being is illegal, and human dignity does not depend on the passport one holds or the country in which one was born.

The project “Towards an open, fair and sustainable Europe in the world – EU Presidency Project 2024-2026” is co-funded by the European Union and implemented by Global Focus, Grupa Zagranica, CARDET, and CONCORD, the European Confederation of NGOs working on sustainable development and international cooperation. Project Number: 2024 / 459-484. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of CARDET and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.

Foteini Sokratous,
Project Manager, CARDET

The article was published at the PolicyPress.

Europe’s public sphere is undergoing a profound transformation. The way citizens consume political and social information is no longer defined primarily by newspapers or evening television bulletins, but increasingly by algorithms, scrolling habits, and the dynamics of digital platforms. The findings of the 2025 Flash Eurobarometer on social media usage reveal more than changing media preferences; they expose a fundamental shift in how democracy itself is experienced across Europe.

Traditional media still matters. Television, in particular, continues to hold a central place in the information habits of Europeans, with 71% of respondents identifying it as a key source of political and social news. Yet digital platforms are rapidly reshaping the landscape, especially among younger generations. Among Europeans aged 15 to 24, 65% now cite social media as their primary source of political and social information, overtaking television entirely.

This is not simply a technological evolution, but a democratic one. Younger citizens are forming opinions, engaging with public affairs, and interpreting world events through platforms designed for speed, personalization, and emotional engagement. Politics increasingly appears in the same digital space as entertainment, influencer culture, and lifestyle content, fundamentally altering how public discourse is consumed.

The shift carries undeniable opportunities. Social media has democratized access to information and broadened participation in debate. Citizens can now interact directly with politicians, journalists, activists, and independent creators without relying solely on traditional media gatekeepers. Voices that once struggled for visibility can now reach millions.

At the same time, however, the risks are impossible to ignore. The survey found that 66% of Europeans believe they encountered fake or misleading information online within just one week prior to the study. Even more concerning is that much of the political content users consume online is encountered passively while browsing for unrelated material. This means that algorithms increasingly shape exposure to political narratives, often prioritizing emotional impact and engagement over accuracy or context.
Perhaps the most striking development is the growing influence of content creators and influencers in shaping public opinion. More than a third of Europeans now follow influencers on social media, while among young people aged 15 to 24 the figure rises dramatically to 74%. In many cases, these creators are no longer confined to lifestyle or entertainment commentary; they are increasingly discussing political and social issues, becoming influential actors within the public sphere despite operating outside traditional journalistic standards or institutional accountability.

This reflects a broader crisis of trust in conventional authority structures. For younger audiences, influencers often appear more authentic, relatable, and accessible than political institutions or mainstream media organisations. The challenge is that visibility and virality are not substitutes for expertise or factual accuracy.

The question facing Europe, therefore, is not whether digital platforms should play a role in democratic life; they already do. The real challenge is whether democratic values can survive within an information ecosystem driven primarily by attention economics. Media literacy is no longer optional. The ability to critically assess sources, identify manipulation, and distinguish fact from opinion has become essential to democratic participation.

Europe cannot afford to approach this transformation with either panic or complacency. Social media is neither the saviour nor the destroyer of democracy. It is a powerful tool that amplifies both informed engagement and disinformation, civic participation and polarization. The responsibility now lies with policymakers, educators, media institutions, and platforms themselves to ensure that the digital public sphere strengthens rather than weakens democratic resilience.

The future of European democracy may increasingly be decided not only in parliaments and polling stations, but in algorithms, recommendation feeds, and the endless scroll of online content competing for citizens’ attention every single day.

The project “Towards an open, fair and sustainable Europe in the world – EU Presidency Project 2024-2026” is co-funded by the European Union and implemented by Global Focus, Grupa Zagranica, CARDET, and CONCORD, the European Confederation of NGOs working on sustainable development and international cooperation. Project Number: 2024 / 459-484. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of CARDET and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.

References

European Parliament, Directorate-General for Communication (2025). Flash Eurobarometer 3592: Social Media Survey 2025. Conducted by Ipsos European Public Affairs. Dataset: GESIS, Cologne. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.14703. Available at: https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/3592

Αcknowledgement of contribution: Veronica Charalambous, Senior Communications Officer, CARDET

Dr Marinos Papaioakeim,
Head of Program Implementation, CARDET

The article was published at the PolicyPress.

Right now, the European Union is renewing its Human Rights and Democracy Action Plan: the five-year blueprint that guides how the EU promotes human rights and democracy worldwide. The timing could not be more important. The attacks on civil society are not random or isolated: they follow similar patterns across regions and are part of a broader, coordinated effort to weaken democracy and human rights worldwide. This is a genuine opportunity to step up. But only if the EU uses it well.

The question is not whether civil society will be mentioned in the new plan. It almost certainly will be. The question is whether civil society will be enabled, protected, resourced, and genuinely engaged through a proper framework that supports the Action Plan’s implementation, or whether it will be squeezed out of the actual work.

A foundation worth building on

The current Human Rights and Democracy Action Plan does a number of things right. It recognises independent civil society as essential to democratic resilience. It commits to protecting a safe and enabling environment for civil society organisations. It calls out restrictive legislation, including limits on foreign funding. It positions CSOs not only as partners in implementation but as watchdogs in governance, media freedom, digital rights, and multilateral spaces.

This is a solid foundation. Civil society and civic space are woven across all five pillars of the current plan, not treated as a side issue. That mainstreaming matters, and it should be preserved in the next cycle. But a foundation is not enough if the walls are crumbling around it.

The gap between words and practice

Here is the uncomfortable truth: the EU’s stated commitment to civil society is not matched by what actually happens with its money and its programmes.

A recent CONCORD study, Who Still Holds the Lion’s Share?, analysed over €26 billion in EU external action funding. The findings are striking. Only 10% of the budget reviewed is explicitly earmarked for civil society organisations. For 70% of the funding, there is simply no publicly available information to even assess whether any of it reaches civil society at all. Indirect management – where the EU delegates implementation to large pillar-assessed organisations such as UN agencies or development banks – now accounts for 62% of the budget, and CSOs are structurally excluded from this modality under EU financial rules.

The picture does not improve when you look at the EU’s flagship infrastructure investment initiative, the Global Gateway. On paper, democratic values and high standards are among the core principles guiding Global Gateway investments through the 360° approach.  In practice, it is difficult to ascertain the degree to which the principles are integrated in projects and with what impact. According to recent research by CONCORD, despite the stated importance of the 360° approach, its components do not yet constitute systematic features of investment-led cooperation, nor are they properly followed up and reported to the public. Additionally, the Global Gateway Civil Society and Local Authorities Advisory Platform has a mandate to “hold the EU to account for respecting and fulfilling EU values”, yet with no real influence over strategy, no say in project selection, and no mechanism to hold anyone accountable for the recommendations it makes, it is difficult to categorise it as anything more than another box-ticking exercise.

Meanwhile, the European Commission’s proposal for the next Multiannual Financial Framework would discontinue the dedicated Civil Society Organisations and Human Rights and Democracy Thematic Programmes: the very funding streams that currently provide the most accessible and predictable resources for civil society work. Removing them without a credible replacement would not simplify things. It would fragment support and weaken the partnerships that have been built over years.

Taken together, these trends point in a troubling direction: civil society is being slowly moved from the role of independent actor to that of occasional consultant. Present at the launch event. Absent from the decisions.

What the new Action Plan should set in motion

The Human Rights and Democracy Action Plan is not a funding instrument. But it is not without weight: endorsed by Member States, it defines what the EU publicly commits to on human rights and democracy, and holds institutions accountable for following through. That is precisely why the next plan needs to go further on civil society, not pull back. This matters all the more because CSOs are in fact a key channel for implementing the Action Plan itself: the majority of funding that does reach civil society flows through governance, human rights, and democracy programmes – exactly the areas the AP prioritises. Three things matter most:

1. First, name the threats honestly, including the ones closer to home. The new Action Plan should explicitly acknowledge that civic space is shrinking inside the European Union too, and that this has consequences beyond Europe’s borders. When EU Member States restrict foreign funding for NGOs, criminalise protest, or treat civil society as a political opponent, it undermines the EU’s credibility when it raises the same issues with partner countries. But this is not just a matter of political coherence. The EU has a legal obligation, under Article 11(2) of the Treaty on European Union, to engage with civil society both internally and externally. Protecting civil society actors inside the EU also directly legitimises their role in partner countries: when the EU tolerates restrictions at home, it weakens its own argument abroad.
   
   
2. Second, make the funding real. Political commitments without resources are just words. The new Global Europe Instrument should call on the EU to push for ring-fenced allocations, at least 15% of programmable external funding implemented by civil society organisations. It should also push back on the tendency to replace grants with financial instruments and blended finance in contexts where these tools simply do not work: fragile states, closed civic space environments, and organisations working with marginalised communities. For many of the most important human rights and democracy programmes, grant-based, flexible, multi-year funding is not a preference. It is a necessity. Equally, the instrument should explicitly recognise advocacy and network-building as legitimate activities for civil society under EU funding – not risks to be managed, but core contributions to democracy that the AP itself depends on.
   
   
3. Third, make engagement meaningful, not ceremonial. The European Union should ensure that EU delegations have the mandate, the capacity, and the resources to work with local civil society, including organisations led by and representing women, people with disabilities, LGBTIQ+ communities, and other marginalised groups. In this regard, the ongoing restructuring of EU Delegations is a real and immediate risk: if it reduces the presence and capacity of CSO and human rights focal points on the ground, it will make meaningful engagement harder in exactly the places where it matters most. To make this engagement real, the EU should support a strong programming process that involves civil society throughout the project cycle and in human rights dialogue – not only at the start of a programme, and not only with the same well-connected organisations in capital cities – ensuring the plan is actually implemented through and with the people it is meant to empower.

The opportunity ahead: building on a strong foundation

The EU has built something worth defending in its Human Rights and Democracy Action Plan. The recognition that civil society is not just a service provider but a democratic actor in its own right, that civic space matters, that human rights defenders need protection, and that independent CSOs are essential to resilient societies, is the right framework.

But frameworks only hold if the EU is willing to back them up.

The renewal of the Action Plan is a moment to do exactly that. To close the gap between the EU’s stated values and its actual practices. To move civil society from the footnotes of policy documents to the centre of implementation. And to acknowledge that you cannot credibly champion democracy abroad while sidelining the people who build it.

This piece draws on CONCORD’s advocacy work on the EU Civil Society Strategy (September 2025), the MFF Analysis (December 2025), Who Still Holds the Lion’s Share? (March 2026), and Unlocking the Potential of the EU’s Global Gateway: Meaningful Engagement with Civil Society (March 2026).

The project “Towards an open, fair and sustainable Europe in the world – EU Presidency Project 2024-2026” is  co-funded  by the European Union and implemented by Global Focus, Grupa Zagranica, CARDET, and CONCORD, the European Confederation of NGOs working on sustainable development and international cooperation. Project Number: 2024 / 459-484. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of CARDET and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.

Acknowledgment Article Contributions: Salomé Guibreteau and Jaimie Just

Camilla Falsetti,
Communications and Media Adviser, CONCORD

The article was published at the PolicyPress.

In 2026, the concepts of the rule of law, democracy, and human rights continue to constitute fundamental values of Europe and the international community. However, contemporary developments on a global scale raise legitimate concerns regarding their protection and effective implementation.

Ongoing conflicts, humanitarian crises, hate speech, and attacks against vulnerable social groups, such as the LGBTQI community, highlight the serious challenges currently facing human rights. According to a recent survey by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 14% of LGBTQI individuals in Europe reported having been victims of physical or sexual assault over the past five years, an increase compared to previous years, demonstrating that, despite institutional progress, the social reality remains alarming.

At the same time, the questioning of democratic institutions, pressures on the independence of the judiciary, and limited tolerance toward differing opinions further intensify concerns regarding the safeguarding of the rule of law. In its 2025 Annual Rule of Law Report, the European Commission notes that, despite reforms implemented in several Member States, significant challenges persist in areas such as media freedom, transparency, institutional checks and balances, and the protection of civil society.

The rule of law, democracy, and human rights are inextricably linked. The existence of democratic institutions presupposes respect for fundamental freedoms, while the effective protection of human rights strengthens democratic participation and social cohesion. Likewise, institutional independence and freedom of expression constitute essential prerequisites for maintaining a strong rule of law.

At the same time, the spread of disinformation, the targeting of journalists, and the rise of extremist narratives create an environment of heightened uncertainty for the democratic functioning of societies. Recent European reports record increasing pressures on media freedom and declining public trust in information institutions across several European countries.

In an era where words often seem to lose their true meaning and facts themselves become distorted, reminding many of the dystopian reality depicted in “1984” by George Orwell, the need to defend democratic values becomes even more urgent. Safeguarding the rule of law and human rights is not only the responsibility of states and institutions, but also the collective duty of every democratic society.

Within this context, alongside the actions of the Cypriot Presidency of the Council of the EU, the European programme EU Presidency Project 5 (EUPP5), implemented in Cyprus by CARDET, contributes to strengthening democracy and the rule of law by promoting the active participation of civil society in public dialogue and decision-making processes. Through collaboration among citizens, organisations, and institutions, as well as the organisation of workshops and public discussions on critical issues, transparency and participatory governance are reinforced, thereby contributing to the protection of democratic values and fundamental rights in Europe. Preserving an open, inclusive, and tolerant Europe depends on constant vigilance against every form of authoritarianism, discrimination, and restriction of fundamental freedoms.

Therefore, within an environment marked by uncertainty and challenges, the protection of human rights remains a beacon of hope, democracy, and change for a society founded on respect, equality, and human dignity.

The project “Towards an open, fair and sustainable Europe in the world – EU Presidency Project 2024-2026” is co-funded by the European Union and implemented by Global Focus, Grupa Zagranica, CARDET, and CONCORD, the European Confederation of NGOs working on sustainable development and international cooperation. Project Number: 2024 / 459-484. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of CARDET and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.  

Foteini Sokratous,
Project Manager, CARDET

The article was published at the PolicyPress.