Search

The Don't let Belgrade D(r)own, protest movement against the city's controversial waterfront development, is one of the largest civil society campaigns in post-Milošević Serbia. Despite engaging an eclectic mix of activists, there has been no tangible participation by Belgrade's well-established environmental NGOs (ENGOs). The absence of ENGOs is all the more surprising given the project's well-documented threat to surface water, increased risk of flooding, and air pollution. The extant literature would suggest that EU enlargement, distancing of green organisations from domestic grassroots agendas as a consequence of external donor funding, and widespread NGO fatigue are to blame. In addition to these explanations, we contend that the limited participation of ENGOs was also due to ideological differences and initial framing of the activism by those who had emerged from, and become disenchanted with, the NGO sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International donors got involved in the Western Balkans during the last two decades, mainly through civil society organisations (CSOs), with the initial aim of providing emergency relief, and then to promote democracy and broadly support the Europeanization agenda. The intention has also been to contribute to the spread of western values and norms, as well as advance notions of 'good governance' and state reform. However, most local CSOs in receipt of such assistance have not developed high capacities and remain dependent on donor funding. They are also vulnerable to political pressures and have become detached from their local constituencies. Through a survey of donors that have operated across the region, this article seeks to examine why the long-term provision of aid and attempts to promote democracy via civil society have seemingly not delivered a sufficient dividend. What is examined here is whether donor conceptualization of 'civil society development' is the critical variable determining success. If we acknowledge that how donors view civil society and its contribution to democracy and state building is the basis from which aid is provided, projects are supported, and objectives set and measured, then better understanding the donors' perspective is an important basis for trying to understand limited success. This, combined with poor co-ordination and collaboration amongst donors and between them and local stakeholders, arguably compounds the problem. The article concludes that although it has long been recognised that donor strategies are contentious and determine the impact of assistance, the economic crisis is exerting a significant impact in terms of priorities, exit strategies and co-ordination, the outcome of which is by no means certain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

EU assistance for Kosovo is the most ambitious external relations venture embarked upon by the Commission to date. Not surprisingly, much of the aid is framed in terms of 'civil society' and channelled through a handful of local non-governmental organizations (NGOs). But attempts by foreign donors to promote civil society exogenously across post-socialist Eurasia are deemed to have achieved little in terms of stimulating individual participation and civic engagement. In response the EU appears to have refined its approach by combining the usual support for larger NGOs with more basic assistance for grassroots networks and community-based initiatives. Whilst such a twin-track strategy is arguably appropriate in the context of Kosovo where civil society participation is particularly low, in terms of maximizing the critical development of transactional capacity the approach may fail to target resources most effectively. It is argued here that there is a danger that normative concerns about liberal pluralism, enriching civil society and ensuring that assistance is widely dispersed may ultimately detract from the imperative of deploying limited resources first and foremost to secure a core of sustainable NGOs with developed capacity to engage government, the international community and other non-state actors in the process of policy reform. Indeed, drawing on the experience of civil society assistance in new member states of Central and Eastern Europe, it would seem that although NGOs are often criticized for their detachment from community organizations and campaigns, they perform a critical 'behind the scenes' role in policy change and state transformation. They can, if donor funding is appropriately targeted, facilitate the emergence of civil society networks through which small community organizations are then linked with larger, established and capacity-endowed organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article argues that efforts by international donors, in particular the EU, to build the capacity of environmental NGOs in Bosnia-Herzegovina has less to do with fostering democratic stability and civil society, and more to do with establishing a new epistemic community. Among critics, the technocratic, apolitical and rather benign term ‘capacity building’ has become code for the transformation and undermining of ‘local’ knowledge, the disregard for existing ‘capacities’, the construction of new networks of experts and the importation of rationalities based on West European discourses and constructions of ecological risk, sustainable development and policy responses. Not surprisingly, the weaker the post-socialist state – legacies of ethnic conflict, the severity of economic collapse – the greater the extent to which capacity-building assistance seeks to transform policy communities, actors and networks. From the perspective of environmental mobilisations in Bosnia-Herzegovina, it is argued that the limitations of environmental capacity-building assistance are due in large part to the failure of donors to distinguish between different ‘capacities’, and their insistence on prioritising the development of project grant expertise and organisational management know-how over and above other developmental needs. The article illustrates the extent to which environmental movement organisations either require very basic developmental assistance or need more bespoke support that will enable them to engage effectively in political and legal contestation with the state. The article concludes that while aspects of environmental capacity-building assistance are clearly having a positive impact, the rigidity of donor aid and the framework of project grants as the mechanism for delivering assistance are limiting the impact to a narrow elite of organisations, of which some are neither non-governmental nor linked to indigenous local environmental networks within civil society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A core element of the international community's state-building efforts in Bosnia has been the development and strengthening of civil society. Since Dayton, the imperative to rebuild and refashion civil society has been identified as critical for the emergence of a democratic state. It has also been viewed as being instrumental in weakening the grip of nationalist political parties. In addition to the perceived political dividend, the development of civil society is seen as fundamental for stimulating the development of the economy and for entrenching the rule of law. Yet to place such enormous and onerous responsibilities on NGOs and civic organizations stretches the conceptual boundaries of an already contested and elastic concept. This essay assesses what has emerged under the banner of ‘civil society’, considers the roles and functions of the various local and international NGOs, and assesses their relationship and contribution to the overall project of state-building. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article contributes to a growing literature critiquing non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as civil society in post-communist Europe. From the perspective of the Czech environmental movement, although over a decade of foreign assistance and know-how transfer has resulted in a tier of professional NGOs that have obtained political influence at the elite level, these organizations have made little progress in rooting themselves in society at large. This gives rise to the claim that what exists today are NGOs without civil society. It is argued that, in light of the withdrawal of large American donors since May 2004 and EU accession, NGOs need to make links with the enmeshed community-based organizations that have emerged in recent years and focus much more on fund-raising and developing sustainable strategies for their future development. Fifteen years after communism collapsed, it is time to take stock of what has evolved under the banner of civil society, particularly in a state where the concept has been fiercely debated. At a theoretical level, it is argued that, in order to assess the capacity of NGOs to fulfil the democratic functions of civil society, we need first to acknowledge the ideological rationale that has dictated their development. It is only by returning to a more normative understanding of the concept of civil society that we gain a critical insight into the apparent disconnection between NGOs and society and their limited capacity to mobilize popular support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this thematic cluster, we explore why and how democratic erosion in post-Communist Europe has led to widespread civic mobilization. We set out the goals and motivations of citizens who choose to protest in defense of liberal democracy. We also compare across cases what pro-democracy protestors believe they have achieved by protesting—and what kinds of changes they believe are needed to end or attenuate the democratic erosion that sent them into the streets. The different contributions to this special section highlight variation in the role of elections: while protestors in some countries expect electing a new government to bring substantial, positive change, protestors in other countries consider that long-term structural reforms are needed. Still other protestors choose to back an electoral boycott as a way to express their opposition to the regime. Even when protests do not achieve short-term goals, such as spurring policy reversals, policy reforms, or changes in government, protestors believe that they raise awareness in society about democratic processes and the role of citizens in them. We also explore how democratic backsliding has impacted the rights of the LGBTQ+ community, which has generally benefited from democratization over the last three decades in post-Communist Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]