Civic space in times of pressure: why democracy needs courage and co-creation 

June 15, 2026 

By Veronica Cretu 

This afternoon, in the heart of Vienna, I had the pleasure of taking part in the Vienna Coffee House Conversation on Civic Space, organized by the Austrian Helsinki Association at Café Museum.

There was something very fitting about discussing civic space in a Viennese coffee house. For centuries, such places have been spaces where people gathered to think, debate, disagree, exchange ideas and learn from one another. In many ways, today’s conversation felt like a continuation of that tradition: people from different professional and personal backgrounds coming together to reflect on democracy, participation and the space needed for societies to thrive.

The discussion brought together three wonderful speakers — Oleksandra Demianenko, Waltraud Heller and Giorgi Ptskialadze — each offering a different lens on what civic space means, how it is evolving, and why it is increasingly under pressure.

Oleksandra brought a powerful 🇺🇦 Ukrainian perspective. Through the lens of Ukraine, civic space is not only about rights, participation and freedoms. It is also about resilience under existential threat. In times of war, civil society becomes a source of solidarity, accountability, humanitarian response, military support, democratic continuity and national strength. Ukraine shows us that civic space can become one of the strongest foundations of democratic resistance.

Waltraud shared the perspective of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, highlighting the key dimensions through which civic space can be understood and assessed: the legal framework, access to funding, participation in decision-making, and threats and attacks against civil society actors. This framework is important because it helps us move beyond general statements and look more concretely at the conditions that allow civil society to operate freely, safely and meaningfully. It was valuable to hear about the different experiences of civil society across the EU member countries. 

Giorgi offered an important Georgian perspective, placing current challenges in a broader historical context. Georgia’s civil society has played a major role in the country’s democratic transformation, European aspirations and public accountability. Over the years, it has often been among the strongest voices defending democratic values, transparency and the rule of law. At the same time, the current situation in Georgia shows how fragile civic space can become when polarization deepens, independent voices are questioned, and civil society is increasingly framed as a political threat or 'foreign agent' rather than a democratic asset. Georgia is a reminder that civic space is never guaranteed once and for all; it must be protected continuously, especially when democratic institutions are under pressure.

After the presentations, we continued the conversation in small groups. I appreciated this part very much, because it allowed us not only to listen, but also to reflect together and build on the speakers’ perspectives through our own experiences. I had the opportunity to meet colleagues working across civil society, diplomacy, education, public policy and other fields, from Georgia, Austria, the United States of America, Austria. These exchanges created exactly the kind of space that democracy needs: open, thoughtful, honest and grounded in lived experience.

🇲🇩Naturally, I brought into the discussion the Moldovan perspective, but also a broader global lens. Moldova is a particularly relevant case when we speak about civic space, because it is a country where democratic institutions, civil society and pro-European reforms are advancing under constant hybrid pressure. The space for participation, criticism and reform exists, but it is also contested, manipulated and targeted by actors who do not want Moldova to succeed as a democratic European state.

One point I raised is that we need to think more carefully about the role of criticism in fragile and highly contested environments. Of course, one of the essential roles of civil society is to criticize power. This is not in question. Democracy needs independent voices, public scrutiny, watchdog organizations and courageous citizens who hold governments accountable.

But in spaces such as Moldova, this role has become more complex. When criticism is directed at the current pro-European government, even if it is well-intended and constructive, it can be picked up, distorted and weaponized by pro-russian forces. What we may see as legitimate accountability can be used by hostile actors to discredit democratic institutions, weaken public trust and generate political damage that is difficult to predict or control.

This does not mean that civil society should become silent or self-censoring. On the contrary, silence would also be dangerous. But it does mean that criticism today requires responsibility, strategic awareness and democratic clarity. We need to ask not only whether our criticism is valid, but also how it may be used, by whom, and with what consequences. In a distorted information environment, even constructive criticism can be turned into ammunition against the very democratic project we are trying to defend.

Another important lesson from our region is that civic and political spaces are not contested only through public narratives. They are also contested through money, influence, pressure, corruption and compromise. russia has invested for years in cultivating networks, financing proxies, exploiting vulnerabilities and identifying individuals who can later serve as political or public “frontliners” when the moment comes. In some cases, compromising material, financial dependencies or personal vulnerabilities can be used to pressure actors into following Moscow’s playbook.

This is why the protection of civic space cannot be reduced only to freedom of association, access to funding or participation in consultations, although all of these are essential. It must also include integrity, transparency, resilience to malign influence, and the ability to understand how democratic spaces are infiltrated, manipulated and redirected from within.

I also referred to the Open Government Partnership, which this year marks fifteen years of existence, and as an OGP Envoy, I can't be any prouder. One of the most valuable things we have learned through OGP is how to co-create. Not perfectly, not always easily, but repeatedly, across countries, contexts and political realities. We have practiced co-creation again and again, and when it is done right, it can generate something close to magic (as I like to say) and trust is one of them. 

This is a practice we should continue to build on. Civil society should be bolder in approaching governmental counterparts not only with criticism, but also with proposals, solutions, frameworks and concrete pathways for reform. Co-creation does not mean losing independence. It means using independence constructively, to shape better policies, better institutions and better democratic outcomes.

In this sense, civil society has multiple roles. It is there to criticize and resist when needed. But it is also there to co-create reforms, support better policies, bring evidence and lived experience into decision-making, and help governments understand what citizens need. In many contexts, civil society can model the very practices it expects from public institutions: openness, accountability, inclusion, integrity and responsiveness.

I also raised the point that democracy and civic space are increasingly affected by emerging technologies, artificial intelligence, political automation, disinformation and new forms of digital influence. These tools are changing how public opinion is shaped, how narratives circulate, how communities are mobilized, and how trust in institutions is built or destroyed. Civil society cannot afford to treat technology as a separate issue. The future of civic space will also depend on how well democratic actors understand and respond to the technological transformation of politics and public life.

Finally, I believe we need to be more careful and more intentional about how we speak about the future. When we say “we need to reclaim civic space”, who is this “we”? Do we mean civil society alone? Do we mean democratic institutions? Do we mean society at large?

This distinction matters. Civic space cannot be reclaimed only by civil society organizations. It must be reclaimed by society as a whole: citizens, institutions, media, educators, communities, public servants, political leaders and international partners. The new narrative must therefore be constructive, inclusive and anchored in a longer-term vision of the kind of society we want to build.

Too often, the language around civic space is defensive: we speak about shrinking space, threats, attacks, restrictions and resistance. All of this is real and must be named. But we also need a more visionary narrative, one that asks: What kind of democracy do we want in ten or twenty years? What kind of public institutions do we need? What kind of citizens, communities and public culture should we cultivate? And how can civil society contribute to making that vision real?

For me, this is one of the central questions of our time. Reclaiming civic space is not only about defending what exists. It is also about reimagining the role of civil society in a world shaped by war, authoritarian influence, polarization, technological disruption and democratic fatigue.

Civil society must remain courageous. It must continue to hold power accountable. It must protect the rights and voices of citizens. But it must also become more strategic, more aware of the environments in which it operates, and more intentional about the democratic future it wants to help build.

Today’s conversation in Vienna was a timely and meaningful reminder that civic space is not something given to us permanently. It is something we must continue to protect, practice and renew together.

Grateful for this thoughtful and timely conversation!