Democratic backsliding is a growing concern for people across the world. Contested elections, imprisoned journalists, weakened checks and balances. But for someone who wants to take concrete action, a question remains open: can you give effectively to defend democracy? And if so, how do you choose? In this article, we review the best available research on the subject, to help you see more clearly and, if you wish, direct your generosity where it will have the most impact.
Source: V-Dem Democracy Report 2025, V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg.
Democratic backsliding is not a feeling: it is measured, documented, and accelerating. Each year, the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg publishes a report analysing the state of political regimes in 179 countries. Its 2025 edition presents a troubling picture.
For the first time in more than twenty years, the world has more autocracies (91) than democracies (88). Liberal democracies, those that guarantee free elections, an independent judiciary, and the protection of individual freedoms, number just 29 worldwide. This is the least common type of regime. Nearly 72% of the world's population now lives under an authoritarian regime, the highest proportion since 1978. The average level of democracy, measured per capita, has fallen back to 1985 levels.
This backsliding is reaching regions once thought secure. Northern and Western Europe is no longer spared. In 2024, 45 countries are autocratising, against only 19 democratising. Freedom of expression is deteriorating in 44 countries, an all-time record over 25 years.[1]
This picture is bleak. But it is not without hope.
In other fields, effective giving has shown that the best charities can have an impact up to a hundred times greater than others. This is not intuition: it is a documented finding in global health, animal welfare, and climate change. The gaps in effectiveness between organisations come down to the quality of the theory of change, the context of intervention, and the ability to prioritise towards results.
There is no reason to think that questions of democracy escape these variations. Not all organisations defending democracy are equivalent. Some act where leverage is high and funding scarce. Others operate in saturated or unfavourable contexts. Yet until recently, no one had applied to this field the rigorous tools of independent evaluation: systematic analysis of evidence, country prioritisation frameworks, and evaluation of organisations according to their theory of change and their results.
In global health and poverty, GiveWell has become the reference compass for donors seeking to maximise their impact. Effective democracy lacked one.
It was from this observation that Power for Democracies was born. The organisation first took shape as a fund within Effektiv Spenden, the German equivalent of Mieux Donner, before becoming an independent non-profit based in Berlin.
Its founders are not newcomers. Markus N. Beeko, Executive Director, was previously Secretary General of Amnesty International Germany. His co-founders Stefan Shaw and Stephan Schwahlen come from Effektiv Spenden, where they developed solid expertise in philanthropic evaluation. The team brings together political scientists, mathematicians, sociologists, and civil society practitioners based in Berlin, Nairobi, Washington, Oxford, and Bogotá.
The ambition of Power for Democracies is simple to state, difficult to achieve: to identify, among the tens of thousands of organisations that claim to defend democracy, those where an additional donation truly makes a difference.[2]
Before identifying the best organisations, Power for Democracies first asked a foundational question: what does existing research show actually works to protect and restore democracy?
The most robust answer concerns civil society. An empirical study published in Studies in Comparative International Development, drawing on V-Dem data spanning more than a century (1900–2010), shows that civil society participation exerts a robust, independent, and substantial effect on the survival of democracies. This finding holds across numerous control variables.[3]
Data on democratic reversals confirm this role. The V-Dem Institute has documented eight cases of countries that, after embarking on autocratisation, managed to reverse course over the past decade: researchers call these democratic U-turns. Among them are South Korea, Slovenia, Ecuador, Moldova, and Bolivia. In these cases, five elements recur consistently: maintained constraints on the executive, mass mobilisation, alternation in power, a unified opposition allied with an active civil society, and international support. The last acts as a facilitator, but is only effective where pro-democratic forces already exist locally.[4]
In other words: supporting civil society where it is active and under pressure means supporting the mechanism that has most often allowed democracies to resist or recover.
To structure their analysis of available tactics, Power for Democracies drew in part on work by the Brookings Institution, whose Democracy Playbook 2025 (Eisen and Katz) identifies seven fundamental pillars for defending democracy:
These pillars are not independent. When a government seeks to concentrate power, it typically attacks several simultaneously: first the media and civil society, then judicial institutions, then electoral procedures. Researchers call these authoritarian playbooks: codified sequences of actions, reproduced from one country to another.[5]
Power for Democracies has mapped these playbooks across 120 countries, including France, to identify those where the threat is real, geopolitically significant, and where external intervention is possible.
Facing 120 relevant countries, Power for Democracies developed a rigorous prioritisation framework structured around four combined indices.
Severity of the democratic situation in the country, combining analysis of anti-democratic attacks with scores from major international indices such as V-Dem and Freedom House.
The country's weight on the world stage: population size, regional and international influence, and potential knock-on effects if democracy declines.
Practical conditions for intervention: sufficiently open civic space, the ability to fund local organisations from abroad, and the existence of measurable results.
Contextual windows for action: an upcoming election, a recent court ruling, heightened international attention — factors that can multiply the effect of timely support.
Presentation of the prioritisation framework
By crossing these four dimensions, Power for Democracies reduced its analysis to a shortlist of 20 countries deserving priority attention. Among them: Argentina, Brazil, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Nigeria, Poland, Turkey, and the United States.
For each country, the team then analysed which pro-democracy tactics had the best chance of being effective in that specific context, before identifying civil society organisations that implement them rigorously and measurably, and for which additional funding can genuinely make a difference.
Power for Democracies published its first recommendations in autumn 2025 and expanded them in spring 2026. Its portfolio now includes five organisations in five countries.[6]
Has protected press freedom since 2017 by providing legal assistance to prosecuted journalists and defending media independence in court, handling around 150 cases per year.
Legal actionIdentifies under-represented voters and removes concrete barriers to their registration and participation at the ballot box, in an American democratic context under significant pressure.
Voter mobilisationFounded in 1979 under military dictatorship, CELS has spent more than forty years defending democracy, human rights, and freedom of expression through legal means in a country with a history of cyclical institutional fragility.
Legal actionFounded in 1991 and embedded in European human rights networks, Antigone protects constitutional rights and democracy through legal defence and public advocacy.
Advocacy and legal defenceFounded in 2007, ICJR is one of Indonesia's most credible actors in criminal law reform. It challenges the legal loopholes used to criminalise dissent and restrict freedom of expression in a context of growing repression.
Research and advocacyFrance is among the 120 countries analysed by Power for Democracies. It is not among the 20 priority countries. This is not because everything is perfect there: pressure on the press, institutional tensions, and growing polarisation all deserve attention. But in Power for Democracies' prioritisation framework, what matters is the combination of threat severity, geopolitical weight, feasibility of intervention, and available windows of opportunity. Other countries currently score higher across all these dimensions.
A country like Russia is also absent from the priorities, but for a different reason: its civic space is closed and Power for Democracies focuses on countries where the organisation has a genuine opportunity to act.
This analysis applies in a specific context: where one wants to defend democracy impartially, where leverage is greatest. If you wish to support democracy in a particular country because it matters to you personally, this analysis cannot guide you. The three-basket method helps allocate your resources: a first basket for yourself and those close to you, a second for causes that matter to you personally, and a third not to be forgotten for helping as much as possible. What Power for Democracies' research allows is to ensure that, if you make that third choice, your generosity goes where it will have the most effect.
Democracy is not an easy cause to evaluate. You cannot calculate a cost per democracy saved with the same precision as a cost per life saved through mosquito nets. But the absence of perfect measurement is not a reason to abandon prioritisation.
Power for Democracies shows that the same principles can be applied here as elsewhere: identify the contexts with the greatest leverage, rigorously evaluate organisations, and direct resources toward those that can make a difference. This is exactly what GiveWell does for global health, Giving Green for climate, and Animal Charity Evaluators for animal welfare.
Mieux Donner does not currently make direct platform recommendations on pro-democracy giving. But we follow the work of Power for Democracies, and if you would like to discuss this as part of a personalised philanthropic advisory, we are available.
If you are based in Germany or Switzerland, you can already contribute to Effektiv Spenden's Defending Democracy fund, which finances organisations recommended by Power for Democracies. For donors elsewhere, tax deductibility may not be available: please contact us to discuss the options available to you.
Mieux Donner provides personalised guidance for donors looking to maximise the impact of their generosity across different causes.
Not at present. France is among the 120 countries analysed, but was not included in the 20 priority countries. The prioritisation framework takes into account threat severity, the country's geopolitical weight, the feasibility of intervention, and available windows of opportunity. Other countries currently score higher across these criteria. The portfolio of recommendations may evolve over time.
Tax deductibility is not currently available for the Defending Democracy fund through Effektiv Spenden for most donors outside Germany and Switzerland. If you are based in Germany or Switzerland, you can donate directly via their platform. For donors elsewhere, please contact us to explore the options available.
The evaluation process includes a thorough desk review, an initial call with the organisation, a detailed questionnaire, and a series of follow-up questions. Power for Democracies examines the theory of change, impact history, organisational capacity, and whether there is an unmet funding need. Only organisations for which solid impact indicators have been identified are approached for evaluation.
Direct comparison between causes remains difficult: you cannot place a life saved through a mosquito net on the same scale as a judicial institution successfully defended. What the research shows is that variations in impact between organisations exist in this field too, and that it is possible to prioritise rigorously. For a donor who wishes to direct part of their giving to defending democracy, Power for Democracies' approach helps ensure that choice has the greatest possible effect.
