Collaboration under the mantle of populism

In general terms, collaboration involves establishing a relationship with other actors —whether similar or different— with the aim of achieving a specific goal. In order for collaboration to be effective, there are several elements that must be in place: (1) a shared objective, (2) transparent and fluid communication, (3) an environment of mutual trust, and (4) a favorable context. Collaboration tends to be more successful when the benefits are clear or when it addresses a pressing need of the parties involved.

In practice, the contextual factor has proven to carry significant weight. In the specific case of the Latin American region, some populist governments—whether left- or right-leaning—have sought to divide their populations in various ways (rich vs. poor, right vs. left, liberals vs. conservatives). Generally speaking, these labels have been used by such regimes to separate the “good” from the “bad”.

According to this perspective, the “bad guys” are all those individuals or groups who think differently from the government or ruling party. As a result, criticism of government actions—or demands for openness, transparency, and accountability—can often be met with hostility. This undoubtedly hinders the work of counterweights, which include autonomous or independent entities, the business sector, journalists, and research centres known as think tanks.

In the case of the organisations mentioned above, they face a twofold challenge that negatively affects their work. The first is the difficulty in maintaining open communication channels, establishing relationships, or collaborating with the current government. This engagement—so crucial for achieving policy impact—becomes nearly impossible. The second issue lies in the difficulty of fostering collaboration among non-governmental actors themselves, such as civil society organisations, the private sector, universities, and the media. All of these stakeholders play a key role in advancing advocacy strategies that seek to drive policy change.

The radicalisation and polarisation of perspectives hinder dialogue and consensus-building. This growing divide among actors is not only present in populist governments but also in other regimes undergoing processes of democratic backsliding, where core values such as freedom of expression, civic participation, the rule of law, and tolerance are increasingly undermined.

At times, the political and economic influence of third countries also affects collaboration. In this regard, funding from international development agencies to think tanks has been shifting significantly over the last few years. In several countries, these funds have been reduced and are now granted for shorter periods, forcing organisations to continually search for resources. This situation was further exacerbated by the “Trump factor,” as the U.S. president had earlier decided to eliminate foreign aid provided by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to other countries.

Currently, securing three or four separate funding sources may be necessary to cover what was once achieved with just one. This resource scarcity has made it increasingly difficult to form consortia to access funding. While some donors encourage collaboration among two or more think tanks to design and implement projects, the overall reduction in available resources has made it less feasible to split funding among multiple parties.

It seems that both national and international contexts are undermining collaborative efforts. In the case of think tanks, this has led to new challenges in how they operate, particularly in certain regions of the world. Yet, working in isolation does not appear to be a viable alternative either. Will it become increasingly common for think tanks to form alliances with actors from opposing ideological backgrounds? Is it possible for civil society organizations to collaborate with governments they do not trust —or that seek to delegitimize their work? Where should we draw the line between a healthy diversity of perspectives and the values that a collaboration can tolerate without compromising its purpose?

Think tanks are at a crossroads where they must determine whether a less genuine and sincere form of collaboration is still desirable, or at least strategically necessary. This dilemma applies not only to relationships with incumbent governments but also to those with non-governmental actors. Do the ends justify the means? There is no definitive answer. In some cases, populism and its effects have been gradually expanding, prompting think tanks to adapt to shifting dynamics and to test various strategies in an effort to understand what works and what does not.

It is challenging to predict the future of collaboration under the influence of populism, which is increasingly drawing more people into its sphere. In this context, think tanks must find ways to remain relevant and loyal to their principles, without legitimising positions that are eroding democratic institutions. The challenge lies in not losing sight of what gives meaning to their existence: contributing to the public interest through research and independent thinking.