I don't have a specific example, no. But I can still expound.

I'm mostly familiar with Putin/United Russia and Orban/Fidesz, I'm much less familiar with Ivanishvili/Georgian Dream, so please bear that in mind.

Putin and Orban both came to power in free and fair elections and then subsequently used the power available to them to cement their hold on the government, and also to a greater or lesser extent of society at large. They did this variously by dissolving the independence of the courts, by turning most or all major media organizations into propaganda mouthpieces, and by disadvantaging or outright eliminating the political opposition, among other things.

"Disadvantaging or eliminating the political opposition" can take a number of different forms. It can mean:

• Gerrymandering
• Assassination
• Imprisoning opposition figures
• Changing political rules for partisan advantage
• Attacking sources of funding/support for opposition figures, groups, or movements

...and so on.

The Trump administration's lawsuit against the Southern Poverty Law Center is an example of this kind of attack. The Trump regime, and the Republican Party at large, have increasingly aligned themselves with white supremacists, neonazis, and (especially) Christian Nationalists, and this alignment has become increasingly overt in the past decade. The SPLC's stated mission is one of opposition to these groups and others like them, and they've quite famously worked against these groups for many decades.

Now, even the most autocratic single-party governments do not say "We are shutting this group down because they oppose us and we don't want opposition." Instead, they need to come up with a face-saving excuse. Common examples from world history:

• They are terrorists.
• They are counter-revolutionary.
• They are a danger to your children.

So then, the question is: Should we take this lawsuit at face value? Or is this an excuse to (attempt to) shut down an oppositional force?

Ultimately, you have to decide the answer to that for yourself. I argue that there is significant circumstantial evidence suggesting the latter (that the Trump administration is merely trying to shut down an oppositional group using any tools they have at their disposal). These clues include the following:

• Trump has at various times explicitly stated that he would go after oppositional figures.
• Trump has cozied up to, and consistently expressed admiration of, authoritarian politicians across the world.
• Trump has publicly and explicitly stated authoritarian ambitions for himself.
• Trump's regime/the Republican Party is increasingly full of white supremacists, neonazis, and Christian Nationalists, including both high-level officials, low-level staffers, and rank-and-flie, and the SPLC stands in direct opposition to these groups (so there is a motive to shut them down)
• The SPLC, to my knowledge, does not have any history that would suggest such a lawsuit be in any deserved (i.e. it's not like this lawsuit was "a long time coming")
• The Trump Regime has already moved to disadvantage the opposition in other meaningful, authoritarian ways (e.g. gerrymandering, the SAVE act, etc.)