Defending Democracy or Constraining It?

Abstract

Governments across the world are increasingly adopting counter-disinformation measures in response to hybrid threats, yet whether these measures protect or undermine democratic freedoms remains disputed. This study examines how the Republic of Moldova’s counter-disinformation measures have affected media freedom between 2022 and 2025, a period marked by intensifying Russian interference and significant changes in Moldova’s media environment. Applying a democratic resilience framework grounded in militant democracy and media freedom, the study traces the causal mechanisms through which counter-disinformation policies translated into consequences for media freedom. Through explaining outcome process tracing, the analysis uses two mechanisms, legal foundation and enforcement in practice, applied across three dimensions of media freedom, absence of censorship, diversity of perspectives and independent scrutiny, to answer the research question. The findings are drawn from Moldovan legislation, and governmental and non-governmental reports from the studied period. They illustrate that the measures expanded the authorities’ legal capacity to censor content, narrow viewpoints and target critical media, through blocking of websites, suspension of media outlets and an unclear legal framework with vague justifications. Practical enforcement nonetheless remained partial, with the clearest effects observed in the weakening of independent scrutiny through documented behavioural change among journalists. The study contributes with a mechanism-based explanation of how protective measures can simultaneously generate democratic constraints, offering an analytical framework transferable to other nations facing similar pressures. Ultimately, the case of Moldova illustrates a broader tension in democratic governance of how a nation facing existential threats can defend democracy while simultaneously constraining it.