The civic space appears to be closing in on civil society worldwide. It certainly feels that way in democratic countries. State capture is extending beyond the institutions of the state, curtailing the operations of civil society organisations\u2014including think tanks.<\/p>\n
Governments use a polarising narrative about civil society organisations to support these moves: they are corrupt, represent foreign interests, promote foreign values, they are unpatriotic, etc.<\/p>\n
The media, often captured, itself, parrots these arguments. But what does the public think?<\/p>\n
Peru\u2019s political institutions are experiencing one of the deepest crises of legitimacy in decades. Trust in Congress, political parties, and even government oversight bodies has collapsed. Against this backdrop, the recent survey by the Instituto de Estudios Peruanos (IEP) on \u201c<\/strong>Perceptions of NGOs and Civil Society<\/strong><\/a>\u201d<\/strong> (June 2025) provides an unusual source of optimism. Despite years of political hostility, citizens express significantly higher levels of trust in NGOs and civil society organisations (CSOs) than in most state institutions<\/strong>.<\/p>\n At the same time, a new political coalition has advanced legislation to restrict foreign funding and tighten state oversight of CSOs. The contrast is stark. While citizens value the contributions of civil society, political leaders often see it as a threat. This contradiction raises an important question: if not public demand, what drives the push to limit civil society?<\/p>\n The survey reveals that 42% of Peruvians trust NGOs \u201cmuch\u201d or \u201csomewhat.\u201d<\/strong> To put this in context:<\/p>\n This matters because Peruvians are living through what some scholars call a \u201ccrisis of political representation.\u201d Most institutions are viewed with suspicion. Yet NGOs and CSOs manage to maintain a reputation that, while not overwhelming, is comparatively strong.<\/p>\n Importantly, trust is not evenly distributed. It is higher among:<\/p>\n The last point is particularly revealing: proximity builds legitimacy.<\/strong> Those who have personally benefited from or seen NGO activities are much more likely to trust them. This finding aligns with global studies that demonstrate the credibility generated by lived experience with civil society, whether through a health campaign, humanitarian aid, or a rights-based initiative.<\/p>\n The IEP survey also asked respondents to evaluate the importance of the issues NGOs tend to address. The results are striking:<\/p>\n The key takeaway is that NGOs do not operate in a vacuum. Their agendas, from defending rights to producing knowledge, resonate with broad segments of society.<\/p>\n This undermines the prevailing political narrative that NGOs pursue \u201cforeign\u201d or \u201canti-national\u201d agendas that are disconnected from ordinary citizens.<\/p>\n Despite this general trust, most Peruvians are unclear about how NGOs are regulated. Only 2% could spontaneously mention APCI (the state agency for international cooperation), and less than 1% identified the SUNAT (the tax authority), Contralor\u00eda (the public comptroller), or SBS (financial services supervisor) as oversight bodies.<\/p>\n Politicians often seize on this lack of knowledge to portray NGOs as unregulated or unaccountable. Yet the truth is that multiple layers of fiscal and administrative control already exist. The real issue is poor communication about these mechanisms.<\/p>\n The survey also shows that opinions on recent legal reforms are divided:<\/p>\n This division reflects confusion rather than consensus. What it does not reflect is a strong public outcry for more restrictions. If anything, a plurality suspects reforms are politically motivated.<\/p>\n It reminds me of Hans Gutbrod\u2019s\u00a0‘Distract, Divide, Detach’<\/a> report on how civic space was being captured\u2014back in 2017.<\/p>\n Two specific policy questions in the survey shed light on the gap between elite and citizen preferences:<\/p>\n These are not ringing endorsements of restrictive measures. Instead, they suggest that while the public is open to oversight, it is not eager to shut down civil society. The more people know about NGOs, the less likely they are to support closure. Again, information and proximity foster trust, not hostility.<\/p>\n The inclusion of \u201cestudios sociales\u201d in the survey is particularly significant for think tanks. Over half of Peruvians said this work is \u201cvery\u201d or \u201csomewhat important.\u201d This category encompasses research, analysis, and policy studies\u2014the bread and butter of think tanks.<\/p>\n Two reflections follow:<\/p>\n The fact that citizens recognise the value of \u201cestudios sociales\u201d should embolden think tanks to speak up. Silence risks reinforcing the elite narrative that separates \u201cgood, technical research\u201d from \u201cbad, political advocacy.\u201d The IEP data suggest that the public is capable of appreciating the contribution of both.<\/p>\n If citizens are not clamouring for NGO restrictions, why are political elites so insistent? The answer lies in elite fear.<\/p>\n NGOs and think tanks introduce accountability into the public sphere. They expose corruption, defend vulnerable groups, litigate against environmental abuse, and question government decisions. For elites that benefit from weak institutions and opaque governance, these functions pose a threat.<\/p>\n The IEP survey, therefore, highlights a paradox: citizens trust civil society more than they trust political institutions, but political institutions are the ones deciding whether civil society can operate freely. The attempt to shrink civic space is less about protecting the public good than about protecting elite interests.<\/p>\n In a country where almost no institution commands legitimacy, the fact that NGOs and think tanks enjoy comparatively higher trust is a precious asset. It should be nurtured, not eroded.<\/p>\n That requires action on several fronts:<\/p>\n The IEP survey is more than a snapshot of attitudes toward NGOs. It serves as a reminder of a deeper political tension: citizens value civil society, even when political elites attempt to restrict it. The battle over NGO legislation, which affects think tanks, is therefore not about technical oversight; it is about control of the public sphere.<\/p>\n These findings add weight to the results of the 2025 State of the Sector Report<\/a> and the importance of trust in evidence in challenging environments.<\/p>\nA rare pocket of trust<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
\n
Civil society\u2019s agenda resonates with citizens<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
Knowledge gaps and manufactured threats<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
Closing NGOs? The public is not convinced<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
Think tanks and the politics of \u201csocial studies\u201d<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
Whose interests are really served?<\/strong><\/h3>\n
A fragile but vital trust<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
Conclusion<\/strong><\/h3>\n