The question of foreign interference in the domestic politics of countries is today one of the most widely discussed topics in democratic societies. Despite the frequent use of this term, experts warn that it is a complex phenomenon that the public often understands in an overly simplified way.
Recognized experts discussed modern forms of political influence—from classic financing of political actors to digital manipulation in the age of social media—at the conference Za človeka gre 2026.
The discussion was moderated by British political scientist Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, a retired research fellow of Merton and Pembroke Colleges at the University of Oxford and Brunel University London, a founding member of the governing body of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, and a member of the board of the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, who has been dealing for decades with issues of political party financing and foreign influence on democratic processes.
The mythology of foreign interference
At the outset, Pinto-Duschinsky warned that the debate on foreign influence is often marked by oversimplified notions. In his words, several generally accepted theses circulate in the public: that foreign interference is constantly increasing, that it is always harmful, and that the main actors are exclusively great powers.
Such claims, in his view, require a more nuanced perspective. International law, especially the United Nations Charter of 1945, basically prohibits primarily violent forms of interference in states’ sovereignty. Milder forms of political influence—for example support for civil society or political organizations—are not clearly defined.
In some cases, they are even encouraged by the international doctrine known as “Responsibility to Protect” (Responsibility to Protect – R2P), which permits intervention in exceptional humanitarian circumstances.
Experience from the democratization period
Pinto-Duschinsky also recalled his own role at the end of the Cold War. In 1989–1990 he prepared, for the British Foreign Office, a policy concept for supporting democratization in the countries of Eastern Europe. This later led to the establishment of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, an institution that still supports the development of democratic institutions around the world.
According to him, two principles were key:
- The first is transparency—all funds intended for political support abroad must be publicly disclosed.
- The second is the so-called “arm’s length” principle, which stipulates that the government itself does not choose the political parties it supports. Instead, the funds are received by British political parties, which then cooperate with partner organizations abroad. Such an approach is intended to prevent direct political manipulation and encourage the development of a plural party system.
Invisible channels of political influence
It was repeatedly emphasized in the discussion that foreign influence today operates through a much broader spectrum of channels than in the past.
Pinto-Duschinsky notes that it is not only about financing election campaigns. Influence can also be exercised through the media, NGOs, trade unions, research projects, or even religious organizations.
He also mentioned a study by political scientist Dov Levin, who analyzed about 800 elections worldwide. His conclusion was surprising: historically, the United States of America has interfered in foreign elections more often than Russia, which shows that such activity has been a long-standing practice in international politics.
Hybrid warfare and cognitive combat
Croatian security expert Gordon Akrap broadened the discussion to the field of hybrid warfare. In his view, modern conflicts are taking place less and less on conventional battlefields and increasingly in the information space.
States can use almost any means to achieve political goals—from economic pressure and energy dependencies to cultural and religious influence. As an example, he mentioned the activity of Orthodox church structures in the Western Balkans, which can become an instrument of political influence.
In his view, a new form of cognitive warfare is also developing, in which artificial intelligence will play a key role in creating sophisticated disinformation.
Algorithms as the new gatekeepers of information
Social media also poses a particular challenge to democracy. Lawyer and professor at Fordham University and Alma Mater Vienna, Jurij Toplak, warns that younger generations are increasingly following the news almost exclusively via social networks such as Instagram and TikTok. This means that global technology corporations have a major influence on which information reaches voters. Algorithms can determine the visibility of political content, raising the question of democratic oversight of the digital public sphere.
Related to this is a warning by political finance expert Marcin Walecki, who highlights the danger of microtargeting. Political campaigns can use user data to craft highly personalized messages that regulators find difficult to oversee.
Great powers and information strategy
British Ambassador Nigel Baker pointed out the geopolitical dimension of the problem in the discussion. According to him, Russia uses information operations primarily to undermine trust in democratic institutions.
The goal of such strategies is not necessarily to persuade voters to support a particular candidate, but to create confusion, cynicism, and political apathy.
At the same time, Russia is not the only global player. China often uses more subtle methods, such as building relationships with political elites and inter-party diplomacy.
Outdated rules for the digital age
A major challenge is also the fact that the legal frameworks for overseeing political financing were created at a time when digital technologies did not yet exist.
Today, funds for political campaigns can be transferred via cryptocurrencies, fintech platforms, and complex financial networks that go beyond national jurisdictions. Regulation therefore often lags behind technological development.
Democratic resilience as the key solution
Despite numerous challenges, the panelists agreed that democratic societies are not powerless. The key defense against manipulation is societal resilience, based on education, transparency, and active citizenship.
Countries such as Estonia have strengthened their resilience by investing in digital literacy and educating citizens to recognize disinformation.
Transparency in the financing of political activities also plays an important role. If all funds are publicly disclosed and monitored through independent institutions, the space for covert manipulation is significantly smaller.
History, on the other hand, shows that civil society can also contribute significantly to defending democratic values. Academic Paul Flather recalled the 1980s, when Western intellectuals secretly helped dissidents in what was then Czechoslovakia—an activity that later contributed to the country’s democratization.
As Ambassador Baker emphasized in closing, the fact that foreign actors invest so much energy in undermining democratic systems actually confirms their value. “Our task is to protect democracy—with knowledge, critical thinking, and the search for truth beyond appealing but often misleading digital messages,” he concluded.
