External funding, primarily from North American and European sources, had a significant impact on Latin American NGOs, both positively and negatively. While it enabled many NGOs to operate, campaign, and provide services that would otherwise be unfeasible, it also sometimes led to a dependency syndrome, where NGOs could be swayed by the interests of their funders over local needs. This funding often determined the agendas and priorities of NGOs, with a tendency to focus on issues that resonated with the political and humanitarian objectives of the funders rather than local constituents. Moreover, during the Cold War, such funding could be politically charged, potentially compromising the perceived neutrality of the NGOs.

Civil society's interaction with indigenous movements showcased a complex alliance that was crucial for amplifying marginalised voices in Latin America. NGOs often provided the necessary organisational structure, legal aid, and international platforms for indigenous groups to campaign for their rights. Through this symbiosis, civil society helped to politicise indigenous identities and grievances, which were frequently sidelined by mainstream politics. They facilitated the inclusion of indigenous issues within the broader human rights discourse, making it a critical element of the democratic struggle. This partnership was pivotal in countries like Guatemala and Bolivia, where indigenous populations formed a substantial demographic with significant historical grievances.

The emergence of civil society in Latin America did not follow a uniform pattern; rather, it varied significantly due to diverse national contexts. Factors such as the degree of repression, economic conditions, the strength of traditional institutions like the Church, and the nature of the political system influenced the development of civil society. For instance, in countries like Chile, where the Pinochet regime imposed severe restrictions, civil society mobilised in clandestine and innovative ways. In contrast, in more open societies like Mexico, civil societies could operate more freely and visibly. Moreover, the extent of international intervention and the legacy of colonialism also created distinctive national variations in the growth of NGOs and other civil society organisations.

Latin American civil society frequently utilised international forums to draw attention to local struggles, seeking external solidarity and pressure to effect change. They participated in international conferences, such as the Inter-American Human Rights Conferences, and engaged with United Nations bodies, using these platforms to report human rights abuses and advocate for democratic reforms. By bringing local issues to an international stage, NGOs were able to embarrass authoritarian regimes, highlight the shortcomings of government policies, and secure international support. This international advocacy was crucial in legitimising their causes and provided them with a degree of protection against state reprisals.

The rise of populist leaders in Latin America often presented a paradox for civil society organisations. On one hand, populists' rhetoric frequently aligned with the NGOs' focus on social justice and inclusion, particularly for the disenfranchised. On the other hand, the populist tendencies to centralise power and bypass institutional checks and balances posed a threat to the democratic principles that civil society stood for. In response, NGOs sometimes had to adjust their strategies, either aligning with populist social programmes to further their reach or resisting populist policies that threatened democratic structures. This dynamic required NGOs to navigate a delicate balance between collaboration and opposition, significantly impacting their activities and focus.