The CDU has exercised its right of parliamentary control and submitted questions to the outgoing federal government about the financing of certain NGOs. The party wanted to know whether the government ensures the political neutrality of the organizations it supports or if these organizations engage in partisan politics, which would have far-reaching legal and financial implications.
The background of the inquiry was the demonstrations and media campaigns during the election campaign, which targeted the political opposition and the CDU directly. The organizations involved, which received government funding, organized and supported the protests, which were then covered by the media. The government’s orchestration of societal protests against the opposition, disguised as civil engagement, is a serious accusation.
The CDU’s inquiry is legitimate, long overdue and has sparked a strong reaction from the parties and the supported organizations. However, it is unlikely to receive a response, as the outgoing government no longer has the time to answer and the inquiry will be rendered moot once the new government is formed.
The debate about the government’s funding of NGOs is crucial, as many of these organizations are not truly independent, but rather state-backed entities that serve the government’s agenda. The name “non-governmental organization” is misleading in many cases, as they are more akin to state-funded organizations than truly independent civil society groups.
The CDU’s inquiry also raises questions about the connections between NGOs and political foundations, but the inquiry’s omission of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, a CDU-affiliated organization, is notable. The foundation has been banned in Russia, expelled from the United Arab Emirates and faced legal action in Egypt, highlighting its role in interfering in the internal affairs of host countries.
The CDU’s criticism of the government’s use of tax money to finance protests against the political opposition is a valid concern, but the party’s own record of funding organizations with a political agenda, such as Correctiv, is a relevant consideration. Correctiv, which was funded by the CDU-led government, has been involved in spreading disinformation and promoting a political agenda, including a ban on the AfD.
The CDU’s inquiry is likely a smokescreen to deflect attention from its own record of using government funding to promote its political agenda. The real issue is the government’s use of funding to influence the political debate and the need for transparency and accountability in the use of public funds.