Elīna Grīnhofa: Chasing Will-o’-the-Wisps While the Battle with the Giant and the Devil Still Lies Ahead 

Last week's events showed just how quickly a discussion sparked by a single public post can evolve into something much larger. Within a matter of days, a question about state funding for certain organizations turned into a situation where the term "NGO" has, on social media, become almost a slur. Under these three letters, people now lump together a vast array of organizations and activities, creating a convenient target onto which public frustration and anger can be projected. 

This is one of the central pitfalls of the current debate. Latvia's non-governmental sector is not a homogeneous group of organizations with identical objectives, functions, or funding sources. It includes organizations that participate in policymaking and advocate for the interests of different groups in society; associations representing seniors, young people, and local communities; professional and industry organizations; sports and cultural associations; and many others. Some rely primarily on membership fees and donations; others implement projects or engage in economic activities, while some receive public funding to carry out specific public tasks. 

Yet even the Prime Minister's argument refers broadly to "NGOs" while citing funding data that encompasses a wide range of associations and foundations. By placing this diverse and differently funded sector into a single category and reducing it in public communication to "NGO funding," the impression is created that there is one uniform sector receiving a single, clearly questionable amount of money from the state. 

This perception does not reflect reality. 

The consequences of such generalizations are felt not by an abstract statistical category, but by real organizations and real people. These are associations that help persons with disabilities to defend their rights, provide support to survivors of violence, families, children, seniors, and people in crisis. They are organizations that raise the alarm for corruption, defend human rights, and help citizens participate in democratic decision-making. 

They are also small local associations where people come together to help their neighbors, organize activities for children and seniors, preserve local traditions, and strengthen their communities. This, too, is a civil society. 

This is not merely a story about NGO funding. It is also a story about trust. 

Trust is not simply an attractive word in public policy documents. It determines whether people are willing to engage, cooperate, and work together to solve issues that matter to society. Building trust in organizations, people, and decision-making processes takes years. Destroying it can take only days. 

Moreover, trust has long been a challenge in Latvia. The recently published OECD Trust Survey once again shows that Latvia falls below the OECD average on many indicators measuring trust in government and public institutions. This is yet another reason to be especially careful about how we build or undermine trust in public institutions, organizations, and ultimately in one another. 

Of course, public funding should be scrutinized. Every euro from the state budget must be justified, and the public has every right to know how it is spent and what results it delivers. This principle is not disputed within the non-governmental sector. 

What becomes dangerous, however, is when decisions to reduce or terminate funding are announced publicly before a data-driven discussion has taken place with the affected stakeholders and before the consequences of such decisions have been properly assessed. Even more concerning is when cutting funding for NGOs shifts from being a question of sound budget evaluation to becoming an instrument of political communication and a component of election rhetoric. 

If non-governmental organizations are reduced in public discourse to little more than a line item in the state budget, society loses sight of their broader role, and trust in organizations whose work often depends precisely on people's willingness to trust and participate is eroded. 

The real question, therefore, is not whether public funding for NGOs should be reviewed. It certainly can and should be, just like funding in any other sector. The real question concerns the process. Do we clearly understand what problem a particular decision is intended to solve? Do we know which public functions are currently being financed, and what will happen if that funding is reduced? And in our pursuit of greater efficiency in the state budget, have we inadvertently created an entirely different problem: a loss of trust in an entire sector? 

Unfortunately, what is said in the public sphere does not disappear with the next social media post. 

The current situation recalls the well-known Latvian fairy tale Sprīdītis. Determined to find happiness, Sprīdītis sets off into the world. In the forest, he spots mysterious will-o'-the-wisps and chases after them in hopes of easy riches. The Wind Mother scolds him: "Why are you chasing my little foster children?" She challenges the young adventurer to take on more serious tasks if he truly has the courage. As we know, the story goes on to confront Sprīdītis with far more formidable adversaries. 

Latvia, too, faces very real challenges: national security, economic growth and competitiveness, long-term fiscal sustainability, demographic change, and growing social polarization. Addressing these challenges requires not only government action but also society's capacity to cooperate and trust one another. 

That is precisely why, at a time when so many difficult tasks lie ahead, we should avoid creating new conflicts where cooperation is what is truly needed. 

As we think about improving the efficiency of the state budget, we should calculate not only how much money can be saved, but also what may be lost in the process. Otherwise, we may discover that, while chasing will-o'-the-wisps, we have weakened the very things we will need when the time comes to face the real Giants and Devils. 

¹ Latvian Civic Alliance, Monitoring of the Associations and Foundations Sector 2025. 

Dalies: