|
|
Civil Society in the South Caucasus and Central Asia: Bridging Research and Practice
Page contents > Paper Abstracts | Presentations
On 20 October 2005, the Centre for Civil Society hosted a one-day specialist workshop on Civil Society in the South Caucasus and Central Asia: Bridging Research and Practice. The workshop presented a forum for academic researchers and practitioners to share their latest research and thinking on civil society in the region. The papers focused on the associational and communal manifestations of civil society in Armenia, Georgia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. The presenters addressed some of the complexities of societies in the region, and the extent to which the concept of civil society can be usefully applied to their political, social and cultural context. The presentations also focused on the role of international donors in shaping civil societies in the region, and the implications of donor interventions for social, economic and political processes in the region. The workshop participants included representatives of the UK Department for International Development (DFID), Oxfam, Christian Aid, Mercy Corps Scotland, ACTED Paris, INTRAC, International Crisis Group, Conciliation Resources, Article 19 and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. The workshop was sponsored by the Centre for Civil Society, Oxfam and the LSE Department of Social Policy. We have received a highly positive feedback from the workshop participants, who found the presentations and the discussion very stimulating and useful. One of the practical outcomes of the workshop has been a decision to establish a network of professionals and scholars involved in the Caucasus and Central Asia region. The proposal for the network based at the Centre for Civil Society is being currently elaborated. In addition, we are currently working on a proposal for a book on Civil Society in the region, which would include some of the papers presented at the workshop. Paper AbstractsElections as Social Drama: Civil Society and Democracy Promotion in Armenia Democracy promotion was a central part of the post-Soviet transitions and led to the funding and implementation of programmes promoting free and fair elections, judicial reform, the development of NGOs, civic participation in political processes, and the development of independent media throughout the countries of the former Soviet Union. While a vibrant civil society is recognised as an important element of democracy building, 'free and fair elections' are seen as the most vital and basic factors in a democracy since they are the sole means of granting the government the authority and legitimacy to govern. This paper examines civil society participation in Armenia's 2003 elections. It argues that the 2003 elections and their aftermath were a rite of passage for NGOs in Armenia which transformed how NGOs perceive themselves and how they are perceived by society. This paper examines Georgia's 2003 Rose Revolution to assess the respective significance of internal and external factors in explaining events. The paper begins by outlining conflicting narratives of the Rose Revolution as a genuine uprising and expression of popular will and a 'post-modern coup', and the respective roles attributed to civil society in each narrative. This background is used to frame a number of questions regarding civil society development in Georgia, its 'revolutionary' role and the implications for its future development. In assessing the unusual prominence of civil society in Georgia compared to neighbouring states, the paper examines a number of limits to state autonomy characterizing the post-Soviet Georgian polity, before examining how these limits have structured state-society relations in Georgia. It is argued these domestic factors are key in explaining civil society development to the point where civil society was able to take the leading role in societal desires for regime change in 2003. The role of external actors is then examined, and while these are acknowledged as significant, especially in moderating a non-violent outcome to the Rose Revolution, it is argued that they cannot explain its occurrence. This does not, however, diminish the significance of narratives rooted in the foreign policy goals of external actors in structuring political opportunities and resources within the Georgian political arena. The paper finishes by examining this 'meta-level' of politics, its implications for the instrumentalization of democracy and its impact on electoral processes in post-Soviet republics. The paper presents the recent (2004-2005) development of the NGO sector in Uzbekistan. Due to a massive crackdown and regulatory restrictions NGOs are being wiped out from the country. Only so called GONGOs are remaining untouched by the repressions. The author claims that the major distinction between these two types of institutions lays in the fact of their belonging to two principally different state's policy domains: independent NGOs being, in the eyes of the government, an attachment to its foreign policy and GONGOs serving as an essential part of the state-corporative system. The emergence and expansion by 2004 of the NGO sector was due to the search by the Uzbek government for international recognition and strategic partnership with the West, notably the United States. GONGOs, in turn, have been assigned with the function of expanding state's political control over the society and its various sectors. When the strategic partnership with the West collapsed it immediately reflected in the states' approach toward independent NGOs. The government promptly started eradicating all independent NGOs, regardless of their mandates, either of 'soft' or 'hard' agendas, because now considered them as agents of the 'alien' West and 'Trojan horse' of 'colour' revolutions. The link of the NGO sector to the domain of foreign policy is evidenced by the fact that most of them have been financed by international donors. Heavily dependent on the financial support from international sources NGOs have found themselves accountable more to their donors, than to the domestic society and, as a consequence, demonstrated the lack of resilience and support from the major society. One of the lessons which can be drawn from the passed period of the civil society development is that international programs have failed to use the short period of limited liberalization to encourage NGOs to build their domestic constituencies and solidarity networks. The same task of constituency building remains to be on the agenda, but, given the tightened state control over the civil society, the condition for its implementation will be much more unfavourable than in the recent past. My aim in the presentation is to probe the concept of civil society, and to reflect on its usefulness as a tool for thinking and acting with in the resolution of trans-boundary issues in Central Asia. The argument that I put forward is that civil society has tended to be identified as a panacea for resolving cross-border tensions in Central Asia, especially through the agency and collaboration of local conflict prevention and development NGOs located close to state borders. Whilst such NGO collaboration has had some notable successes, moments of inter-state stress also expose the extent to which NGOs are practically, legally and - importantly - conceptually wedded to the states in which they are located. At moments of real tension and outright hostility, local "conflict prevention" NGOs actually risk becoming parties to cross-border conflict by acting as (or being perceived to have the function of) channels or transmitters of specifically national grievances to local state administrations and mass media. The reason, I suggest, has less to do with any fault of the NGOs or their personnel, than with the fact that they are far more constrained by the macro-context of the state in which they have to function than donors and international observers typically recognize. The illustration I give is based on a short case-study of the fate of one particular cross-border initiative in the Ferghana Valley involving collaborating NGOs on two sides of the Kyrgyz-Uzbek border. I look at the constraints under which the two organizations work, the way in which these constraints have changed since March 2005, and the implications that this has for their ability to foster contribute to conflict prevention in the Ferghana valley. I contextualise this through a discussion of other cross border initiatives in the Ferghana valley, including the network Dolina mira, the Ferghana valley debate forum collaborative journalism projects, and the obstacles that all of these have faced as a result of having to navigate profoundly different political contexts on either side of the Kyrgyz-Uzbek border. I draw a theoretical conclusion from all this about the importance of theorising the "civil" of civil society - i.e. questioning the designation of civil society as a space "autonomous" from the state. I also use the example to reflect critically on the theoretical coherence of the idea of "international civil society" and urge policy makers to remain sensitive to the importance of political context for assessing the ability of NGO collaborations successfully to deal with cross-border issues. The presentation discussed whether the concept of civic participation is applicable to the context of post-Soviet Armenia and Tajikistan. Most of the existing research on post-Soviet civil society has been preoccupied with the Western model of civil society, with its emphasis on formal associational life and NGO or voluntary sector activities. There have also been misconceptions about the nature and forms of communal civil society in post-Soviet countries. It is a commonplace belief that the 'Soviet mentality' prevents local people from initiating solutions to local problems and actively managing local development. The presentation argued that civic participation indeed exists in post-Soviet Armenia and Tajikistan, although its form and manifestations are different from the commonly accepted Western notion of civil society. Ordinary community residents in local communities are not apathetic and paternalistically oriented. The limits to participation are not due to cultural or 'mentality' factors at the local level. Civic participation in both countries is limited because of the prevailing institutional legacies of the socialist system. Thus it is the absence of a supportive institutional and governance environment at the macro level that discourages citizen participation in service delivery and democratic decision-making. The paper argues that international NGO interventions with communities to create community-based organisations (CBOs) in Tajikistan are often not achieving the goals they claim. In particular, as part of an intersubjective relationship, donor-supported CBOs become more like the communities, rather than the communities becoming more like them. The paper uses discourse analysis to provide a conceptual framework to understand civil society interventions in Tajikistan based on three contending discourses: international 'civil society'; elite 'neo-sovietism', and popular tinji (peacefulness/wellness). The constructive and reproductive complementarities between 'neo-sovietism' (which emphasises official 'authority' and stability to the exclusion of civil society and transformative intervention) and tinji (which emphasises deference and the avoidance of change) have largely meant that international interventions have reflected these modes of governance. The paper concludes with some implications for donor/international interventions in communities in terms of planning, implementation and monitoring & evaluation. Empirical work was conducted in 2004 and 2005 with community-based organisations set up under programmes designed to resolve conflict in the regions of the Rasht Valley, southern parts of Hatlon province and the Panjakent and Asht regions of Sughd province. The author worked with Mercy Corps Tajikistan, GTZ and Aga Khan MSDSP. The paper was based on fieldwork in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan in 2003 - 2004 as part of a three year DFID funded INTRAC programme aimed at strengthening civil society in Central Asia. Introducing some of the conceptual issues behind community development, the paper discussed how it can be used as both a method and a process. Research into US funded donor practices at the community level suggested a primary instrumental concern with the provision of infrastructure, and highlighted problems of participatory methods and engagement with traditional institutions or practices. Discussion then led on to the apparent lack of fit between donor community development programmes and their other areas of engagement in democratisation and non-profit sector management. The work of US donors at community level tends to ignore the political aspects of community development and the potential for community groups to interact with and make demands of local authorities. The lack of donor engagement on issues of rights and democratic decision-making at the local level constitutes a missed opportunity for civil society strengthening in communities in Central Asia. This paper focuses on the comparison of two institutional models for conflict management that are promoted by the state and by international donors in southern Kyrgyzstan. Elders' Courts have been established by the prior government of Kyrgyzstan, following a presidential decree in 1995 and a later constitutional article. They replicate a 'traditional' institution in Kyrgyz culture that predates the Soviet Union. Community-Based Organisations have been introduced to Kyrgyzstan by donor organisations after independence. Rather than replicating existing institutions, they represent a new associational form of the 'civil society' as promoted by donor organisations. I argue that, while an universalistic understanding of civil society organisations and their role in conflict management has lead to their perception as a 'black boxes', these two institutions promote differing models for social organisation. These differences matter for the ways in which conflict and its management are constructed. The empirical data presented in this paper were obtained during field stays in 2003, 2004 and 2005 in southern Kyrgyzstan." PresentationsCivil Society & Poverty Reduction: Providing a Safety Net or Promoting Sustainable Livelihoods? |
About this page |
Comment on this page |
Privacy statement |
Disclaimer
Copyright ©