What does Liberties’ “EU rule of law ‘dismantler’” classification mean for Croatia?

What the report’s classification points to is a broader trend: important democratic safeguards are stagnating, weakening, or being politically instrumentalised instead of strengthened.

The concern is less about one dramatic authoritarian rupture and more about the gradual normalisation of democratic erosion. Croatia still formally maintains democratic institutions, elections, plural media, and an active civil society sector.

In practice, this means repeated failures to implement reforms related to media freedom, anti-corruption safeguards, judicial accountability, transparency, and civic participation. It also means growing tolerance towards political pressure on critical media and civil society organisations, alongside increasingly hostile rhetoric directed at those perceived as politically inconvenient.

What are the most worrying trends currently unfolding in Croatia? 

One worrying trend is the growing political normalisation of hostility toward critical voices. There is very visible pressure against people directly involved in journalism, civil society, anti-corruption work, or minority rights. 

Journalists continue to face Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), political attacks, online harassment, and increasing economic precarity. Civil society organisations working on human rights or government accountability are often publicly delegitimised and portrayed as politically suspicious, “anti-state,” or linked to opposition parties.

For example, rather than engaging with the substance of the findings of the Liberties Rule of Law Report, senior government representatives publicly questioned the legitimacy and motives of the Croatian organisations that had contributed to the report. The Centre for Peace Studies was singled out and portrayed as acting against Croatian interests. 

The shrinking of democratic space rarely happens through one big event. It happens slowly, through exhaustion, polarisation, fear, and the normalisation of institutional dysfunction. 

Another worrying trend is the increasing gap between formal democratic commitments and actual implementation. Important reforms remain permanently “in progress”, while accountability mechanisms weaken over time. 

In the Centre for Peace Studies, we are particularly concerned about the gradual shrinking of civic space through softer and less visible mechanisms. One increasingly visible problem is the growing gap between formal consultation and meaningful participation. Civil society organisations are often invited into working groups, consultations, and policy processes, but their recommendations are frequently ignored, and key decisions appear to be taken elsewhere.

What worries us most is that these developments rarely appear dramatic when viewed individually. Taken together, however, they create an environment in which democratic institutions gradually become less responsive, less accountable, and less open to criticism and participation.

Croatia is often seen as an EU “success story”. Why do worrying developments there receive less international attention than similar trends in Hungary?

Hungary remains a much more advanced case of systemic capture of institutions, media, and public resources. At the same time, concerns about the rule of law in Croatia are often underestimated internationally. 

Croatia benefits from the image of being a “success story” because it is geopolitically stable, strongly pro-European, and generally avoids direct confrontation with EU institutions. But that image can obscure more subtle forms of democratic decline, and developments rarely generate international headlines. 

Croatia should not simply be equated with Hungary, but it should not be treated as immune to democratic backsliding simply because the process is quieter, slower, and more administrative in nature. 

Problems in Croatia often emerge through stagnation, selective implementation of laws, informal political pressure, weak accountability, or the gradual weakening of public institutions rather than through spectacular constitutional conflicts. 

There is also a structural factor that is often overlooked. Croatia has been governed by the same political party for most of the last three decades, with only two relatively short interruptions. The concern is not that Croatia has become an authoritarian state, but that long-term concentration of political power can weaken institutional independence, accountability mechanisms, and democratic culture.

How has public discourse around human rights organisations changed in recent years?

Human rights organisations are increasingly portrayed by some political actors and media commentators as partisan actors, ideological enemies, or even as working against national interests.

The discourse has become more polarised and more hostile. This is not entirely new. In previous years, such rhetoric mostly came from the far-right margins. Today, it increasingly appears within broader political discourse, including from actors close to mainstream governing structures.

At the same time, civil society organisations are often expected to compensate for institutional failures while simultaneously being attacked for doing so.

What developments in Croatia should the international community pay closer attention to over the next year?

International organisations should pay closer attention to the implementation of the European Media Freedom Act, political pressure on minority and critical media, the persistence of SLAPP lawsuits, and the broader deterioration of the public discourse around democratic participation and human rights.

Another important issue is the increasing normalisation of intimidation and delegitimisation directed at journalists, activists, and independent organisations. Even when this does not immediately produce legal consequences, it changes the political climate and gradually weakens democratic resilience.

Finally, attention should also be paid to implementation gaps. In Croatia, many democratic protections formally exist on paper, but enforcement is inconsistent, selective, or politically dependent. That gap between norms and practice is where many of the current problems actually emerge.

If international actors focus only on the most dramatic cases, they risk overlooking countries where democratic erosion takes place more slowly but can become deeply entrenched over time.

About Centre for Peace Studies

Centre for Peace Studies (CPS) is a civil society organisation that protects human rights and strives for social change based on the values of democracy, anti-fascism, nonviolence, peacemaking, solidarity, and equality. CPS uses activism, education, research, advocacy, and direct support. CPS works with communities, initiatives, organisations, media, institutions, and individuals in Croatia and internationally.

Centre for Peace Studies is a member organisation of Human Rights House Zagreb.

About Liberties

The Civil Liberties Union for Europe (Liberties) is a non-governmental civil society organisation promoting the civil liberties of everyone in the EU, and it is built on a network of national civil liberties groups from across the EU. The Liberties Rule of Law Report 2026 is the seventh annual report on the state of the rule of law in the European Union (EU).