You are on page 1of 10
 
Black Sea Trust for Regional Cooperation
March 2013
Te Black Sea rust for Regional Cooperation
B-dul Primaverii nr. 50Corp 6 “Casa Mica”Sector 1Bucharest, Romania  +40 21 314 16 28 F +40 21 319 32 74 E BlackSearust@gmus.org
Summary:
What is the state of civil society in the Black Sea region? What is the West’s track record in supporting civil society? Why does democracy still remain at the mercy of ruling elites, while’ donors struggle to create strong citizen pressure for social transformation? This brief focuses on the quality of civil society in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine, mostly because they have a more enabling environment for civic activism, a “partly free” system of governance and enjoy substantial investments by the Western donors to develop civil society. The brief addresses general trends and similarities in civil society and points to key missing pieces of the civil society puzzle. It suggests how donors’ approaches to strengthening civil society can be recalibrated to encourage democratization more effectively. Zooming in on these three societies could offer insights about future strategies in the wider Black Sea region.
Black Sea Region: Missing Pieces of the Civil Society Puzzle
by Orysia Lutsevych
From the Editor 
In the five years since the launch of the Black Sea rust, the Black Sea region has gone through dramatic events and major changes, which affected both individual countries and the region as a whole. Te Black Sea rust has devot-edly assisted civic groups in the nine Black Sea countries with reacting or adapting to political and social events, researching the dynamics of the region,  promoting stronger relations with international community, and building bridges between societies or groups in conflict. Five years on, the rust reflects on the current context in the region and the challenges ahead.
Introduction
In the last decade, a wave o civic activism rolled over several countries in the Black Sea Region. Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova experienced color” revolutions, which mobilized millions o citizens and led to new leaderships who were entrusted with reorm o the post-Soviet system o governance. Afer the 2012 Duma and Presidential elections in Russia, massive civic protests erupted in a cry or dignity and or a political system ree o corruption, violence, and authoritarian rule. Tese instances o large-scale mobilizations o citizens demanding change resonate with the belie that civil society in the post-Soviet region is strengthening and has acquired a distinct voice. It is this  voice, alongside a stronger rule o law and ree and air elections, that many European and U.S. donors see as crucial or uture democratization o the region. oday, each o these countries is a different “success” story, but all still ace the challenge o consolidating democracy. Te October 2012 parlia-mentary elections in Georgia proved that a peaceul transer o power is possible, notwithstanding numerous obstacles to democratic competi-tion that occurred in the run-up to elections. In March 2012, Moldova overcame an almost three-year consti-tutional crisis and elected a new president. Afer President Viktor Yanu-kovych took office in 2010, Ukraine reduced the space or democracy, with imprisonment o major opposition leaders, growing media censorship, and a shrinking circle o decision-making around the presidential amily. Elsewhere in the region, democracy is even under greater stress rom entrenched leadership, narrow space or independent action, and growing pressure on civic activists. Tese trends raise the issue o preventing urther democratic backsliding and ensuring that the region chooses and maintains the path to democracy. What is the state o civil society in the region? What is the West’s track record in supporting civil society? Why does democracy still remain at the mercy o
 
Black Sea Trust for Regional Cooperation
2
Twenty years of Western democracy assistance aimed at supporting civil society in the post-Soviet states have achieved few tangible results.
ruling elites, while’ donors struggle to create strong citizen pressure or social transormation? For the states that were ormerly part o the Soviet Union, the legacy o a shared totalitarian past continues to influ-ence their transition to democracy. Tis holds true even or those aspiring to a closer European integration, especially with regard to the role and development o civil society. wenty years o Western democracy assistance aimed at supporting civil society in the post-Soviet states have achieved ew tangible results. Tis brie ocuses on the
quality
o civil society in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine, mostly because they have a more enabling environment or civic activism, a “partly ree” system o governance and enjoy substantial investments by the Western donors to develop civil society. Te brie addresses general trends and similarities in civil society and points to key missing pieces o the civil society puzzle. It suggests how donors’ approaches to strengthening civil society can be recalibrated to encourage democratization more effectively. Zooming in on these three societies could offer insights about uture strategies in the wider Black Sea region.
Three Facets of Civil Society
Civil society is defined here as a public space or citizens to engage in collective debate and sel-expression, and where public opinions that influence public policy are ormed. Tis space lies between the amily and the state, is indepen-dent rom the state, and is legally protected. Fundamentally, civil society is a medium, in which the social contracts between citizens and political and economic centers o power are negotiated and reproduced.
1
 Civil society implies the existence o independent organiza-tions, with active communication between organizations, citizens and the state, leading ultimately to a certain degree o influence on policymaking. Tese citizens’ groups, which consolidate various interests, can take numerous orms such as membership organizations, charities, think-tanks, neighborhood associations, inormal movements, and aith-based groups. Teir key characteristic is independence rom the government. All these types are equally important or a  vibrant civil society as they provide more avenues or citizen engagement, which can be expressed in ormal member-
1
Mary Kaldor,
Global Civil Society: An Answer to War 
 (Cambridge; Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2003).
ship, signing o petitions, participation in demonstrations,  volunteering, and donations.When thinking about the conditions or healthy and vibrant civil society, one must consider a variety o actors. Te key pillars that support the oundation o civil society are preva-lence o rule o law, a clear separation o powers, an active political society, and ree and independent media. Tis brie ocuses mostly on internal actors that define the quality o civil society, such as NGO culture, the state o public space, citizens’ perceptions o democracy and activism, emerging civil movements, and their interaction with the state. A healthy civil society is considered an integral part o any democratic system o governance. Along with ree and air elections and accountable institutions, it ensures that the  voices o citizens are included in policymaking. Different democratic traditions can lead to different pathways o ensuring this inclusion, but a democratic system must enable expression or those affected by policy decisions. Tere is ample literature on the subject o civil society, which offers various approaches to the subject. Te most holistic approach would combine three acets o civil society: civil society as associational lie and NGO culture, civil society as good” society, and civil society as public space.
2
 It is by taking a closer look at all these three expres-sions that we can get a more accurate picture about the state o affairs and the quality o civil society on the ground.
Civil Society or NGO-cracy?
With regard to the post-Soviet states, the West viewed the task o supporting civil society development through the narrow lens o non-governmental organizations (NGOs) by
2
Michael Edwards,
Civil Society 
, 2004, Polity Press
 
Black Sea Trust for Regional Cooperation
3
The atmosphere among NGOs is more competitive than collaborative, the capacity of these groups is developing slowly, and
their inuence on policymaking is
limited.
providing financial and technical support to locally regis-tered groups in order to make them active in influencing the state. Tese local NGOs became synonymous with civil society and
de facto
monopolized the civil society discourse, leaving wider society and other non-institutional orms o citizens’ engagement behind. What kind o ecosystem did this approach create or inde-pendent civic associations in the region? Te situation on the ground shows that at-large citizens are distant rom ormal NGOs and preer inormal engagement to ormal membership in organizations. Te atmosphere among NGOs is more competitive than collaborative, the capacity o these groups is developing slowly, and their influence on policymaking is limited. Despite relatively liberal legislature or NGOs, civic groups in Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova still lack systemic impact. NGOs are not game-changers and ail to offer viable alternative models o development. At the same time, particularly in Ukraine, the government is playing in the field o civil society by supporting phantom-NGOs who are ready to highjack the agenda, and Russia is projecting its sof power by financing pro-Eurasian NGOs. What are the root causes o this state o affairs?
Citizens as Passive Consumers of Democracy Assistance
One o the main reasons or a eeble civil society is the act that citizens are not at the heart o ormal engagement. In all three countries, citizens are largely isolated rom public deliberations about important issues because local NGOs have little ability to help them ormulate opinions and influ-ence state policies that affect them. Western-unded orga-nizations are not anchored in society and constitute a orm o “NGO-cracy,” a system where proessional NGO leaders use access to domestic policymakers and Western donors to influence public policies without having a constituency in society. Tis means that many Western-unded organizations are disconnected rom wider society. Despite growing numbers o registered NGOs, very ew citizens participate in, volun-teer their time or, or make donations to NGOs. Te low figures or citizen engagement — 5 percent in Ukraine, 4 percent in Moldova, and 4.8 percent in Georgia — have remained unchanged or the last 20 years.
 3
 A survey conducted among mostly Western-unded NGOs reveals that only 27 percent would call their organization an association o citizens.
4
 Tey treat citizens as “benefi-ciaries” and the “target audience” or services. Only 17 percent o the groups who report having a membership in Ukraine have more than 100 members.
5
 Most o their work is ocused on policy advocacy and much less on public advocacy to change the behavior or the mindsets o the citizens. Generating a social oundation or democracy and supporting citizens’ rights ranked third and ourth, respec-tively, among NGO goals. Building trust and networks was the least undertaken unction. Membership development was not perceived as a priority, and only 20 percent consid-ered that the strength o their organizations came rom a membership base. When citizens are not at the heart o these organizations, they become passive consumers o democracy develop-ment aid instead o the driving orce behind democratic change. It is because citizens do not know their local NGOs that they are reluctant to contribute their time or financial resources. In Ukraine, citizens are vaguely aware only about private philanthropic and charity oundations established
3
For Ukraine: Democratic Initiatives Foundation survey, “Can civil society influence Ukrainian politics?,” October 2011. http://www.dif.org.ua/ua/polls/2011-year/chi-zmozhe-gromadjanske-suspilstvo-vplinuti-na-ukrainsku-politiku_.htm For Moldova: “Behaviour in the Republic of Moldova,” December 2010, http://www.everychild.md/en/node/267. For Georgia: “Citizens’ Attitudes toward Civil Society Organizations and Civic Activism: 2011 Public Opinion Survey Results,” East-West Management Institute, 2011. http://www.ewmi-gpac.org/failebi/citizens_attitudes_toward_csos_and_civic_activism_report_eng_55445.pdf 
4
Author’s online survey, “Civil Society and Democratisation,” 2012, based on 77 responses form leaders of NGOs (45 from Ukraine, 16 from Georgia and 6 from Moldova)
5
Counterpart Creative Center, “Civil Society Organisations in Ukraine: State and Dynamics 2002-2011,” 2011, http://ccc-tck.org.ua/en-default/en-default/text/service/left_menu/res.html

Reward Your Curiosity

Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.
No Commitment. Cancel anytime.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505