WonkComms, Soapbox and Socio Público convened a fantastic panel to discuss the impact of state capture on think tanks and their responses. Thinktankers from Serbia (Sonja Stojanović Gajić, former director of the Belgrade Centre for Security Policy), South Africa (Amelia Broodryk, Institute for Security Studies) and Argentina (María Belén Bonello, Fundar) came together to share their experiences with a predominantly U.S. and Western European think tank audience.
I was grateful to moderate a discussion about a topic we have explored at length in On Think Tanks.
Read more about think tanks and state capture:
1. What does it mean to be in a captured state?
Being in a captured state was described vividly through experiences from Serbia, South Africa, and Argentina.
The panellists highlighted that a state is captured when democratic processes, institutions, and resources are systematically manipulated by those in power, primarily for private gain or political advantage.
Sonja Stojanović Gajić provided a powerful and detailed description of gaslighting as a central element of what it means to live in a captured state. Her description captures both the psychological impact and political strategy behind gaslighting:
For Sonja, gaslighting refers to a situation in which the manipulation of reality is so pervasive that it leads individuals and society at large to question their own experiences and perceptions: You know you live in a captured State when the gaslighting is so strong that you start questioning your reality.
She illustrated this point vividly with a specific and dramatic anecdote from Serbia in 2016, which involved:
- A late-night incident where “a group of 30 men with balaclavas and bulldozers” destroyed private property in the centre neighbourhood of Savamala in Belgrade on the night of the elections of 2016.
- Witnesses were prevented from reporting the incident; their phones were taken away, and they were temporarily detained.
- When local residents and workers tried to contact the authorities, the police refused to intervene, explicitly following instructions from higher-level authorities who dictated that this destruction was “not a police issue.”
Sonja identified this moment clearly as indicative of a captured state, as official bodies, including law enforcement, actively denied that this incident ever occurred despite overwhelming evidence and eyewitness accounts. It was only through the Ombudsperson’s inquiry that the citizens got confirmation of their accounts. His findings were not reported in captured media; instead, a smear campaign was launched against the person and institution.
This is not merely about spreading misinformation; it’s about constructing a parallel, official reality so effectively that ordinary citizens, journalists, and experts begin to question their own observations and judgments.
How does gaslighting function politically?
Sonia elaborated on the broader political function of gaslighting, framing it as part of what Sergei Guriyev and Daniel Treisman called “spin dictatorship,” where autocrats rely heavily on controlling and manipulating perceptions rather than overt, widespread violence.
Gaslighting is used to legitimize otherwise illegitimate actions—like bulldozing properties for private gains—as progressive initiatives beneficial for society, in her example, described as “modernization” and “beautification” of Savamala neighbourhood.
This process includes:
- Institutional manipulation and repurposing: Institutions such as the police, judiciary, media, and even security services are used to serve the private interests of those in power, rather than the public good.
- Legitimised through narratives and misinformation: Autocratic regimes actively shape narratives to justify their actions, delegitimise opposition, and consolidate power. They employ tactics like distraction, division, and detachment (the “3Ds”) to control public perception and maintain their grip on power.
- Distract — creating noise, confusion, and false conflicts.
- Divide — encouraging social polarisation.
- Detach — fostering apathy and resignation among the public.
- Loss of public trust: Trust in public institutions and political processes deteriorates significantly. Citizens become disillusioned, polarised, and disengaged from public and civic life.
- Targeted repression: Instead of widespread violence, repression is initially selective, targeting journalists, activists, whistle-blowers, and think tanks that challenge the regime.
Disillusionment is a central feature of life under a captured state
Amelia Broodryk recounted her personal memory from childhood of watching Nelson Mandela’s inauguration in 1994 on a small TV in the South African embassy in Washington, D.C., recalling a strong sense of hope. She described witnessing the gradual erosion of this hope under Jacob Zuma’s presidency. Zuma, despite his problematic past involving corruption and charges of sexual violence, was democratically elected. He went on to systematically dismantle state institutions:
- Appointing loyalists and removing competent professionals.
- Undermining the media and the justice system. (We need independent journalism more than ever.)
- Deeply damaging public trust and societal cohesion, leaving people feeling sidelined and unsafe.
This did not happen overnight. Across all contexts, the “warning signs were visible but ignored: Assumptions about integrity blinded South Africa to institutional weaknesses until it was too late.”
Ultimately, all efforts are geared towards preserving and enhancing the power of those capturing the state.
2. How does state capture affect think tanks?
The impact on Serbian think tanks is clear. Sonja further illustrated the personal and professional impacts of operating within such an environment:
Her organisation has faced direct intimidation after publicly challenging the regime’s narrative:
- A colleague’s car was marked with threatening signs.
- Later, his apartment was suspiciously broken into, presumably by intelligence services, who took nothing but subtly moved items around to instil fear.
- Her successor experienced digital surveillance (spyware), marking the serious escalation of intimidation tactics against think tank personnel.
The implications for think tanks are profound and multifaceted. They involve:
- Credibility and legitimacy challenges: Think tanks often become targets for smear campaigns aimed at undermining their credibility, especially if they challenge or expose the state’s capture.
- Restricted funding and operational constraints: Funding, particularly from domestic and independent sources, is often limited or heavily scrutinised. Foreign funding is stigmatised or legally restricted, limiting the financial stability and independence of think tanks.
- Direct and indirect intimidation: Think tanks and their researchers face direct threats, intimidation, surveillance, and legal pressures designed to silence or deter critical research and advocacy.
3. What can think tanks do in these contexts?
Despite challenges, think tanks can adopt strategic responses to continue their work and mitigate the effects of state capture.
Present in all these choices are inevitable and difficult ethical dilemmas.
Think tanks frequently encounter ethical and strategic dilemmas when engaging with captured or autocratic states, needing to balance the risk of inadvertently legitimizing oppressive regimes against the necessity of influencing policy to protect vulnerable populations through evidence-informed advice. To maintain ethical integrity, decisions about such engagement should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, explicitly considering potential risks to legitimacy and researchers’ safety. Organisations should adopt transparent ethical guidelines to systematically navigate these challenging contexts.
I have written about what think tanks and their funders can do in increasingly autocratic regimes. Sonja, María Belén and Amelia shared practical examples of their organisations’ choices.
- Strategic communications to “simplify the chaos”: Think tanks should communicate clearly, calmly, and simply to cut through noise and misinformation. They should use “anchoring concepts” to clarify and organise complex narratives, helping the public see the underlying trends behind isolated events. In South Africa, it was the report Betrayal of the Promise led by the Public Affairs Research Institute that offered the vocabulary to the society to describe state capture and connect the dots among numerous scandals.
- Engagement with broader society: Panellists emphasised the importance of connecting with the “movable middle,” focusing efforts on ordinary citizens rather than extreme actors. They should aim to foster civic pride and build common ground rather than directly confronting polarised debates.
- Collaborative advocacy: Think tanks should collaborate closely with civil society organisations, activists, and media outlets to amplify their impact and legitimacy. This may include strategic roles such as providing technical expertise, vocabulary, frameworks, and analytical support, rather than leading from the front.
- Capacity building and institutional strengthening: In contexts where there is independent leadership or pockets of resistance within institutions, or following the fall of a captured regime, think tanks can help rebuild weakened institutions (e.g., police, judiciary, civil service) by providing expertise, evidence-based policy recommendations, and direct technical support. They may also focus their attention on the few institutions that remain standing (e.g. the Central Bank in Peru).
- Community and grassroots engagement: Reinforcing community ties, engaging in direct, face-to-face interactions, and promoting inclusive dialogue were highlighted as essential counter-strategies to digital polarisation and misinformation.
- Don’t debate everything: Choose which narratives are worth engaging with. Some frames are traps (e.g. foreign agent accusations). When you accept the wrong question, you reinforce the wrong story.
Maria Belén illustrated these recommendations, highlighting Argentina’s current political disruptions due to the election of a far-right outsider as president. She shared an anecdote involving a Fundar campaign called “What Do They Have in Common?”:
- The campaign featured unlikely pairs of famous Argentine figures (e.g., a comedian alongside a former minister of economics, Che Guevara alongside a contemporary far-right politician, and a popular influencer alongside a surgeon who invented bypass surgery).
- The campaign aimed to demonstrate that Argentina’s public universities – currently under attack – are valuable institutions that transcend political differences and provide opportunities to diverse individuals.
- The initiative was crafted specifically to resonate emotionally with the broader public rather than relying purely on statistics or anger, reflecting a strategic approach to communication in a polarised environment.
Her core message resonated across the panel: “Communication in turbulent times means protecting clarity, trust, and shared values – not just reacting. Through evidence and imagination, communicators can help defend what’s worth keeping.”
Abandon all hope for attribution
Sonja emphasised that while think tanks play a critical role in addressing state capture, they should generally avoid taking a visible lead in public confrontations. Instead, they should support others who are better suited for public leadership roles, such as activists, human rights groups, and grassroots organisations.
She explains this clearly by stating:
“I think think tanks should take more of a backseat in public communications. I think we should work with others. We should strategize with others like human rights organizations, the activists, whoever is on the first line of attack to help them bring their case into a bigger framework, but not us being the face of that battle.”
She argued that think tanks are sometimes viewed as part of the “technocratic elite,” and putting themselves visibly at the forefront could unintentionally reinforce negative perceptions or reduce public trust:
“Think tanks are perceived as a part of the problem, as a part of technocratic elites, which are detached from the realities of life of ordinary people and should work to keep their credibility, but I think they’re better messengers than think tankers.”
Instead, she proposes that think tanks’ real strength lies in providing analytical frameworks, vocabulary, technical expertise, and strategic communication support behind the scenes, enabling frontline groups to communicate more effectively and authentically:
“Think tanks can help strategise communications, can bring evidence, can bring vocabulary, can create safe spaces, as Amelia said, but are not necessarily the best messengers.”
At OTT, we have explored the relationship between think tanks and social movements, think tanks and political parties, and more.
4. Additional challenges and emerging threats
The panel also identified several other complicating factors that exacerbate the challenges of operating in a captured state:
- Rise of alternative and partisan media: The proliferation of far-right and disinformation-focused media outlets create parallel realities, complicating the public communication landscape for think tanks.
- Fragmentation of media consumption: Personalised media bubbles further entrench polarisation, making it difficult to engage broad and diverse audiences.
- Technological asymmetry and AI-driven misinformation: Sophisticated use of AI and technology by autocratic actors provides significant advantages in manipulating narratives and suppressing dissent, significantly increasing the complexity of the communication challenge for think tanks.
The event underscored that while operating in a captured state poses severe risks and challenges, think tanks have meaningful avenues to maintain impact and support democratic processes. Success depends on clear strategic positioning, careful ethical choices, robust alliances with broader civil society, and proactive efforts to maintain public trust and legitimacy.
These emerging issues are explored at length in the OTT Talks series: Think tanks in a changing Europe.
5. Think tanks are not alone
What is happening in the U.S. today and parts of Western Europe is not unique to these contexts. It is also not unique to their own histories. Much of the rest of the world has been experiencing prolonged and more recent periods of systematic capture of the state by more than one set of actors, and in more than one instance.
Think tanks in Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe, the Balkans, South and South East Asia have rich experience and expertise on the process of capture, its impact on societies and think tanks in particular, and how to respond.
There is a real opportunity and need for think tanks to engage, learn from each other and collaborate in pursuit of a common goal.
Find out more by joining the opportunities provided by the On Think Tanks programme for think tanks and their funders alike.