Between Policy-oriented Criticism and Structural Opposition — Civil Society Advocacy in the Age of Populism

Abstract The paper aims to understand how established civil society organizations (CSOs) react to populist governance and what factors influence the strategies adopted. Populist governance is often characterized by avoidance of intermediary institutions, such as CSOs, and repression/obstruction of oppositional civil society, which might challenge the position of established CSOs. The paper focuses on how established CSOs in Italy and Sweden have reacted to the 2024 budget legislation by their national governments. The analysis focuses on the content of the advocacy and the level of conflict/opposition implied in the advocacy: from non-structural opposition to major structural opposition. Contextual factors related to state-civil society relations and right-wing populist parties’ access to power are used to understand different levels of conflict among CSOs’ responses as well as the CSO’s characteristics and mission. The analysis shows more frequent system-oriented criticism from Swedish CSOs compared to Italian ones. This pattern can be related to Swedish civil society being more advocacy-oriented as well as the Swedish state having more direct control over public funding to CSOs. Also, the type of CSO and the policy area of activity seem to matter for the response to budget legislation. The article shows the relevance of the societal role of civil society and the power wielded by the populist parties for understanding established CSOs’ interest in and capacity to oppose populist governance. It offers a novel approach to studying CSOs’ responses and understanding contextual factors.