UPDATED: How Georgia Is Misusing Sweden for Propaganda – Swedish Ministry of Justice Responds

The Government’s Favorite New Lie

It followed a familiar script: Georgian state-aligned TV station Imedi published a report claiming to reveal a striking truth — that Sweden, one of Europe’s liberal role models, had now introduced a law similar to Georgia’s controversial FARA legislation. The implication: “If even the morally superior Europeans are doing it, then stop criticizing us!”

The absurdity went further when Parliament Speaker Shalva Papuashvili added fuel to the fire on social media:

“Isn’t this all shameful? But no one is ashamed…”

It’s a classic tactic in Georgia’s current political rhetoric: Flip the script, portray yourself as the victim of Western “double standards,” and try to normalize domestic repression under the guise of international alignment.

Shalva papuashvili's Facebook Post

The Reality: What Sweden Is Actually Doing

To uncover the truth, Tiflis24 contacted the Swedish Ministry of Justice directly. The response we received was clear, precise, and thoroughly revealing.

Official response from the Swedish Ministry of Justice (translated in full):

“The Swedish government has appointed a special inquiry chair to assess if foreign funding of activities in Sweden linked to extremist and other anti-democratic purposes should be prohibited and propose a regulatory framework for such a ban. The purpose is to counteract activities that threaten Sweden’s democracy — such as defending acts of terrorism and violent extremism or encouraging violent actions and sabotage. The inquiry chair is tasked to ensure that the proposal complies with obligations and requirements of the Swedish Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights, and other human rights commitments. How different terms will be defined and what safeguards there will be for the civil society are questions the inquiry will need to analyse and assess. It is not uncommon that inquiry chairs, during the ongoing work, set up meetings with experts and different organisations in order to receive and exchange information and views that can influence the proposals. After the Government has received the proposals from the inquiry chair, there will be a consultation process that includes different representatives of the civil society and experts in human rights. Thereafter, the Government decides whether to go forward with any of the legislative proposals from the inquiry or not. The Swedish way contrasts sharply with Georgia’s Foreign Agents Registration Act, which targets all foreign funding regardless of its purpose and which was adopted in a rushed manner without due public consultations. The Venice Commission has also concluded that the restrictions imposed under the Law of Transparency of Foreign Influence fail to meet the requirements of legality, legitimacy, and necessity in a democratic society and has strongly recommended Georgian authorities to repeal it. Supporting a pluralistic and peaceful civil society is an important focus area in Sweden’s long-term reform cooperation in Georgia aiming to contribute to democratic development and respect for human rights. - Ministry of Justice, Sweden”

What This Means — In Plain Terms

Sweden is not adopting a FARA law. It is merely exploring — through a legal inquiry — whether certain extremist-related funding should be prohibited in the future. It’s targeted, narrow, and firmly rooted in democratic norms.

Key features of the Swedish approach:

• It targets only funding linked to terrorism and violent extremism

• It will be subjected to constitutional and human rights review

• Civil society is explicitly included in the consultation

• The process is transparent and deliberative

Compare that with Georgia’s law:

• Foreign funding of any kind triggers registration

• The term “political activity” is intentionally vague

• Oversight mechanisms are opaque and punitive

• The law was rushed through parliament without debate

• Civil society is treated as a threat, not a partner

What Georgia’s FARA Law Actually Does

Since April 2025, the so-called “Transparency Law on Foreign Influence” has been in effect in Georgia. Often falsely equated with the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), the Georgian version is a fundamentally different animal — and far more dangerous.

Key elements of Georgia’s law:

• Any individual or organization receiving more than 20% of funding from abroad must register as “an agent of foreign influence”

• “Political activity” is not clearly defined — almost anything qualifies

• Fines up to 25,000 GEL apply for non-compliance

• Enforcement lies with the “Anti-Corruption Bureau,” not an independent body

• Citizens are encouraged to report “suspected violations” — i.e., to denounce each other

This isn’t transparency — it’s surveillance.

Europe Reacts — And It’s Not Subtle

In March 2024, the Venice Commission gave its opinion on Georgia’s FARA-style bill:

“The draft law violates principles of legal certainty and fundamental rights such as freedom of association, expression, and privacy. It does not represent a proportionate response to any legitimate public concern.”

The European Court of Human Rights, in its landmark judgment in Ecodefense v. Russia, ruled that laws branding civil society actors as “foreign agents” are incompatible with democratic standards and violate the European Convention.

The European Union, numerous member states, and international bodies have spoken out repeatedly. The Swedish Embassy in Tbilisi issued a blunt statement:

“The Swedish assessment procedure cannot be compared to Georgia’s law. The difference is fundamental.”

Why Propaganda Works Anyway

The Georgian government isn’t interested in legal comparisons — it’s interested in controlling the narrative. By creating false parallels, officials:

• Shift blame to the West

• Undermine international criticism

• Normalize repression at home

• Erode trust in democratic institutions

And yes, this strategy works. Not because it’s logically sound, but because it’s emotionally effective — especially in a polarized society where patriotism is routinely weaponized.

Georgia’s Constitutional Contradiction

Ironically, Georgia’s own constitution mandates the exact opposite of what the government is doing. Article 78 clearly states:

“State authorities are obliged to take all necessary measures to ensure the full integration of Georgia into the European Union.”

The FARA law directly undermines this obligation. It violates EU principles, contradicts Georgia’s commitments under the European Convention, and signals a strategic drift away from democratic alignment.

The Swedish Mirror

In attempting to use Sweden as a propaganda shield, the Georgian government has inadvertently created a mirror — one that reflects its own democratic decline.

While Sweden prepares a targeted, constitutional measure against terrorism-related funding — with full public involvement — Georgia has imposed a broad, punitive law with authoritarian implications.

As the Ministry of Justice in Stockholm put it:

“Supporting a pluralistic and peaceful civil society is an important focus area in Sweden’s long-term reform cooperation in Georgia.”

One might suggest that Tbilisi start listening.

Has Sweden adopted a law like Georgia’s FARA?No. Sweden is conducting a narrow inquiry into whether funding tied to extremism should be restricted — not a general law against NGOs.

Why do Georgian officials claim otherwise?To discredit international criticism and justify their own law. It’s state-sponsored disinformation.

How is Sweden’s approach different from Georgia’s law?Sweden is exploring a highly specific measure through a democratic process. Georgia imposed a vague, sweeping law targeting all foreign-funded actors.

What does the EU say?The Venice Commission and European Court of Human Rights have both condemned Georgia’s law as incompatible with democracy.

Is Georgia’s law constitutional?No. It contradicts Article 78 of the Georgian Constitution, which mandates EU integration.