The objective of this research is to capture the Georgian government’s approach toward independent, autonomous, and organized civil society organizations amidst the country's accelerated process of authoritarian reversal and consolidation. Specifically, this study examines the impact of deliberate state policy on the functioning of these organizations and explores their strategies for navigating and responding to the altered political environment.

This research investigates the experiences of civil society organizations operating across the country. By documenting the observations of the research participants, the study aims to describe how the political, social, and discursive landscape has shifted regarding civil society organizations, and to assess the impact of the restrictive legal and operational environment on their existence and functioning. Furthermore, the research examines how these organizations respond to the challenges they face, identifying the factors that determine their strategic decisions, their resilience, and vulnerabilities.

This research is based on an analysis of both primary and secondary sources. For the purposes of this study, primary sources consist of interviews conducted within the framework of the research, while secondary sources include assessments, feedback, studies, and reports from local and international organizations, as well as publicly available media materials.

An essential component of the study is the field research, which was conducted using qualitative methods. Specifically, the research utilized a format of in-depth, semi-structured interviews. The field research comprised 30 in-depth interviews (involving 31 respondents in total),[1] of which 22 were women and 9 were men. Within the scope of the research, 5 expert interviews, were conducted with respondents[2]  who, in addition to their expertise in issues related to the civil sector, had also directly participated in the ongoing processes and discussions. The remaining 25 interviews were conducted with representatives of civil society organizations - in most cases, these were organization heads, with exceptions including deputy heads or members of the organizations’ collegial governing bodies. In all instances, the respondents were directly involved in the ongoing processes and were responsible for, or participated in, the organizational decision-making process.

Within the framework of the research, we gathered information regarding the experiences of 28 civil society organizations.[3]Several concurrent criteria were employed in the selection of respondents/organizations, including the organization's activity profile, organizational scale, and geographic scope of operations (capital city/regions). As a result, the research encompasses civil society organizations with diverse activity profiles. In many instances, an organization simultaneously engaged in multiple types of public activity; consequently, the profiles of several organizations surveyed in this study are mixed, combining several of the directions listed below. In certain cases, the respondent was able to identify a primary activity profile for their organization. In addition to organizations with mixed profiles, the study included watchdog organizations focused on democracy and human rights, think tanks, community-based organizations, local foundations, service-provider organizations, trade unions, professional associations, as well as research, sectoral, infrastructure, and bridging organizations. [4]

The size of the organizations was determined by the respondents themselves, who categorized their organizations as small, medium, or large. In doing so, we requested that they consider their organization’s revenue, number of employees, the scale of their activities, and their size relative to other civil society organizations operating in Georgia. Based on this size classification, the study included 8 large-sized, 10 medium-sized, and 10 small-sized organizations. Regarding geographic scope, the research identified three categories of organizations: those functioning in Tbilisi; those with a central office in the capital but maintaining a regional presence through local offices and representatives; and those operating exclusively within the region(s). Consequently, the study encompassed 17 organizations functioning in the capital (although the vast majority of these organizations actively work in the regions on both sectoral and community-based issues, effectively covering topics and beneficiaries nationwide); 6 organizations functioning simultaneously in the capital and the regions through offices and representatives; and 5 organizations functioning solely in the region(s), representing regional or local entities.

Within the framework of this research, we gathered comprehensive information regarding the experiences of 28 civil society organizations. Furthermore, the questionnaire included a dedicated section for respondents to provide information on the experiences of their partner organizations, which allowed us to collect significant data on dozens of additional organizations operating in the capital and the regions.

The interviews were conducted between August and September 2025, with only two conducted in late July. Consequently, this study describes the status of civil society organizations as of early October 2025, thereby providing the opportunity to assess the impact of all significant legislative changes and events concerning civil society that occurred throughout 2024 - 2025.

The interviews were conducted using both in-person meetings and online platforms. In total, 17 interviews were held in person, while 13 were conducted via online formats. The average duration of the interviews was 90 minutes. To ensure the safety and anonymity of the participants, this research does not disclose the names or surnames of the respondents, the names of their organizations, or any characteristics that could potentially reveal their identities. The list of interviews appended to the study provides data only in a generalized form. When using citations throughout the research, the respondents' narrative styles have been largely preserved. Furthermore, quotes have been selected in a manner that does not reveal any identifying information regarding the individual respondent or their organization.

Following the data collection process, we employed methods of transcription and thematic coding to process and analyze the interview transcripts. Additionally, the analysis incorporated information derived from the synthesis of secondary sources.

This study aims to examine the experience and conditions of formally organized civil society organizations. Consequently, due to limited resources, the research does not entail informal or unorganized initiative groups, nor does it include broader civil and social movements, despite their significance as a major component of civil society and as primary targets of restrictive policies. Furthermore, the study does not evaluate the impact of these policies on media organizations. While the altered legal, political, and discursive landscape has profoundly affected the existence and operations of media entities, the scale and complexity of this topic necessitate an independent and dedicated analysis.

Share